June 12, 2008
Supreme Court Upholds Habeas Corpus!
In yet another devastating blow to the Bush Administration’s policy on terrorist prisoners, the Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo prisoners have the Constitutional right to habeas corpus, the right to challenge their incarceration before a court of law. The Decision was 5 to 4, with Bush appointees and conservative Justices dissenting.
On the left, the People for the American Way write of the ruling:
"The Supreme Court has rebuked President Bush's vision of the presidency as an office of limitless power, and declared that the president of a free nation cannot simply lock people up and throw away the key like some third-world dictator. This is a stinging blow to the administration's lawless policies and its allies in Congress.
On the right, The Naitonal Center for Public Policy Research has this to say:
Responding to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allows suspected terrorists to challenge their incarceration, Project 21's Kevin Martin is criticizing the Court, saying this decision puts national security at risk and sends a confusing signal to the military.
Washington Post reports Pres. Bush had this to say:
"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented. . . . That dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."
Bush also said the administration would consider new legislation that "might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people: 'We're doing everything we can to protect you."
President Bush still doesn't get our Constitution after 7.5 years as President. The Congress legislates, NOT the president. The president executes the laws of the Congress, Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. Ah, well, a bit too late to hope for his education, now.
This story is very relevant to this election year, as the next president will, in all probability, appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court in his first 4 years.
Sen. McCain has vowed to appoint conservative judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal, and rule as Bush's appointees have on this most basic of Constitutional provisions, Habeas Corpus; the right to face and answer the charges of one's accusers in a court of law. McCain had this to say about today's decision:
It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens, but -- and I think that we should pay attention to justice Roberts' opinion in this decision -- but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that.
Obama's education is in Constitutional Law and will adhere to 'stare decisis' on the Roe v. Wade decision. Meaning he will not seek Justices who would overturn it. Obama had this to say about today's decision:
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo
My own two cents is this: "Any authority that seeks to imprison people in perpetuity without judicial review or a legal hearing is an authoritarian after Stalin's or Castro's own heart. That of course would include President George W. Bush, et. al. and his supporters who agree with Bush's comments on this issue."
What's your two cents worth?
Finally. Now, let’s work on these, before these abuses cause more deterioration.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2008 08:00 PMExcellent article David.
“This story is very relevant to this election year, as the next president will, in all probability, appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court in his first 4 years.”
And that is why last year I said I would vote for the democratic candidate , I dont care who is nominated, unless they had horns and a tail.
“Sen. McCain has vowed to appoint conservative judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal, and rule as Bush’s appointees have on this most basic of Constitutional provisions, Habeas Corpus; the right to face and answer the charges of one’s accusers in a court of law.”
And this is why Obama can grow horns and 10 tails and I would still vote for him. This issue is actually more important to me than the economy and the “war on terror”.
I just dont understand how a conservative can accept this from the conservatives on the SCOTUS. They rant and rail about legislating from the bench yet demand that justices who legislate from the bench be appointed. Go figure.
The thought of getting rid of Habeas Corpus because of a small bunch of terrorist simply reeks. How scared can you be to think this is acceptable to the real Americans in this Country.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2008 09:18 PMJ2t2,
I have no idea why you discriminate against congenital deformities. It seems rather cruel to me.:)
David,
Is it my cynicism or is the court smelling the winds of change?
googlumpus, Nah! You have one primary swing voter Justice on the Court capable of siding with the one set of 4 or the other, depending on the case and issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:16 AMj2t2, thanks.
“The thought of getting rid of Habeas Corpus because of a small bunch of terrorist simply reeks.”
The only way terrorists can win battles with the U.S. is by using JuJitsu, our own wealth, power, and flaws against us. Bush has been such a weakling puppet in their hands. 9/11 was designed to spur a grotesque overreaction by the U.S. government as to portray itself as a nation out of control. Iraq was just such a reaction. A bit of a delayed reaction, but, grotesque enough to have lost respect and leadership for America amongst a billion or more people in the world. And caused America to suffer the image of a fool when the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq were exposed.
Bush’s and conservative Justice’s intent to subvert the Constitutional protections for human dignity and rule of law, without exception, in the name of fear of the terrorists, demonstrates that there are many on the Right who would much rather give up freedom and safeguards from oppression than to die for them, just like many on the Left.
Rule of law with exceptions is nothing more nor less than rule of men, not law. Rule of men is what so many in the GOP truly believe in as demonstrated by their actions, which speak so, so much truer than their words.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:28 AMDavid I can understand the GOP and their “war on terror” being the vehicle to undermine the rights of the American people. Its rather easy to understand their intents. What I dont understand is after the abuses of the past 3 decades how conservatives can still fall into lockstep with the GOP without even a whimper of protest. Really, what does it take for a conservative to understand the issue here?
This goes against everything conservatives hold as values IMHO. The federal government captures and holds people without bringing any charges against them? Yet without the slighest hesitation they side with W and his nefarious ways on something as important as habeas corpus. The constant conservative ranting about judges that legislate from the bench seems to me to be so utterly foolish when they condone the justices comments that disagreed with the majority opinion on this isue. Strict constitutionalist my a**. Ideology driven authoritarians is more like it.
If the detainees are guilty of crimes against this country bring them up on charges,try then in a court of law and if found guilty execute them for christ sakes, but to hold them in limbo for years without charges is inexcusable. Such small minds to think that this will solve the problem.
Im greatly disappointed in any and all conservatives that defend the GOP on this issue. Values Schmalues, they dont have values, they dont have any principles. What they have is a complete and total lack of understanding about the values and principles of this country. Their agenda is as morally bankrupt as their leaders. They disgust me.
“The only way terrorists can win battles with the U.S. is by using JuJitsu, our own wealth, power, and flaws against us.”
I agree David but you would think after watching the Russians cash in their chips on Afghanistan that our leaders would not fall for the same thing. Yet here we are almost 6 years into it and still playing their game. Allowing Bush and the neocons to have their way on this issue tells us the conservatives in the Congress didnt have a clue and came at this out of fear, which is what OBL wanted. You have to wonder whose side these conservatives are on dont you?
I wonder what the libertarians think about this ruling today? They must be in shock to think the strict constitutionalist of the SCOTUS bellied up to the authoritarians so meekly and so readily.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2008 02:02 AM“I have no idea why you discriminate against congenital deformities. It seems rather cruel to me.:)”
Well googlumpugus what I actually said was I was voting dem for prez unless they nominated the devil himself. This was due to the probability that the next prez would have the obligation to select a justice of the SCOTUS. After this disgusting display of corporate authoritarianism Ive decided that the devil himself would be better than another “strict constitutionalist” sitting on the court.
However for all other offices I will vote for a minor party if given the chance. Since I will be in Colorado come November it seems I should be able to get my pick as in the previous election there was 10 different candidates on the ballot for prez as well as other offices in the state. So you just never know perhaps one of them will be qualified IMHO yet have a cogential defect and I will be able to clear myself of any anti-congenitalist claims. :)
j2t2 said: “Allowing Bush and the neocons to have their way on this issue tells us the conservatives in the Congress didnt have a clue and came at this out of fear, which is what OBL wanted.”
Not just neocons, j2t2, nearly every Republican and a majority of Democrats. They didn’t do what they were supposed to do, what they were paid to do, their homework (like tell their staff to read the CIA Factbook about Iraq and get back to them) and consult in hearings with the Pentagon and CIA. THEN represent the interests of the people and nation in coming to a decision on the matter based on the facts, NOT what the Party Leadership said would be politically expedient at election time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 04:39 AMDavid,
Does this mean that Every Human on Earth is a Citizen or Every Citizen on Earth is a Human?
So, the difference in thinking is whether non American citizens are, or are not, entitled to the same Constitutional rights as American citizens?
Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2008 09:34 AMI wonder what the libertarians think about this ruling today?
It was a good ruling, why would we be in shock again?
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 13, 2008 10:46 AMHenry Schlatman wrote: Does this mean that Every Human on Earth is a Citizen or Every Citizen on Earth is a Human?Human rights should be universal. Some try to blur the differences between civil and human rights. Thus, Bush and some others think non-U.S. citizens don’t deserve rights that are actually human rights, not to mention rights according to the U.S. Constitution. As usual power corrupts, when there is insufficient Conscience, Education, Transparency, and/or Accountability.
- Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
No government should be able to hold any person without charging them. After all, as has been discovered, there is no proof that some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were guilty of anything.
And then there’s Spc. Sean Baker, who was beaten and brain-damaged at Guantanamo Bay, where (supposedly) no injustices ever occur, and if they do, the perpetrators are always held accountable.
It’s no surprise that G.W. Bush (43) publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. After all, G.W. Bush (43) has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s a summary of G.W. Bush’s Constitutional Record from the CATO Institute: www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
What is equally disturbing is the majority of Congress persons in the two-party-duopoly in do-nothing Congress that allowed it … something voters should remember on 4-NOV-2008.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
The major problem with Gitmo is that the detainees were not given a trial in a timely manner. Don’t tell me that they didn’t have the evidence against the detainees a LONG time ago. They should have been given a military tribunal in a timely manner and either convicted or set free.
Yesterday’s ruling by SCOTUS doesn’t stop the military from trying the detainees in a military tribunal. They can proceed with that. It DOES, however, allow the detainees to petition a federal court (which ALL the detainees will surely do) to bring habeas. It also says that the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act isn’t a viable substitue.
Now, if Congress wants to suspend habeas, they will have to do so by using Suspension Clause of Article I of the Constitution…but you can bet a dime to a do-nut that the Dem Congress won’t do that.
Like I said…the main problem I have with Gitmo is that the detainees haven’t ALREADY been tried by a military tribunal and either convicted or acquitted.
Posted by: Jim T at June 13, 2008 11:18 AMWill someone PLEASE explain to that bunch liberals up there in DC (specially the ones on the Supreme Court) once and for all that the POWs at Gitmo ARENOT United States citizens or residents? They are PRISONERS OF WAR and have ABSOULTLY NO rights under our constitution. They have fewer rights than the illegals that have none at all. But what more do ya want from folks that want to let illegals vote in our elections.
Hell, they most likely want to let the POWs vote too.
I’m no lawyer (and haven’t stayed at a HIE) but I just don’t think the Administration’s argument held once taken to the extreme (unlimited detention). So they put in place a tribunal process late in game after arguing that they didn’t need a process. That’s not good for your argument.
I do think it will deter the concept of small, light interdictions like we did in Somalia. Just imagine all of the people in Mogadishu shooting down the Blackhawk then standing next to the burning chopper and surrendering. The Army would have to either detain them all and transport them stateside to the nearest circuit court or just let them go. This will be used against us at some point in the future.
I wonder if, now that he has a right to a show trial stateside, Bin Laden will come out of the cave waving a white flag and accompanied by his U.S. defense attorney of choice? That would give him better PR than any of those tapes he’s been recording lately, and I bet it would be bigger than the O.J. trial!
Ron Brown, our Constitutional rights extend to foreign citizens as well, that is why we are a nation of immigrants. They have no fear of coming here, and eventually becoming citizens, because they know HUMAN RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution protect them as well.
This was nothing more than America pushing outward a bid to ensure the fulfillment of the promise of the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution - in VERY MUCH the same way as Civil Rights, women’s suffrage, and the Miranda laws did. Remember that in the time of enactment of these other founding ideals, folks cried they would ruin the nation, make our nation less safe, etc. etc. etc.
They are human beings in GITMO, and our government imprisoned them without ever having the basic human right to have their imprisonment on an authority’s say so, reviewed under the rules of our law for accuracy or just determination.
Those liberal judges are protecting Habeas Corpus for all of us. If it isn’t extended to GITMO prisoners, then it sets the precedent for the President to ID a person, any person, as a terrorist threat and lock them away for the rest of their life without judicial review. That is NOT a precedent these so called liberal judges want set. And I agree with them entirely.
Security should never negate Freedom without due process of just law. And all that is required to insure that security doesn’t undermine freedom is a bit of courage. Something the so called conservative Justices appear to lack with their willingness to sacrifice our Constitutional principles for actions that help them be less afraid.
Freedom and Liberty exercised HAVE, and ALWAYS WILL HAVE inherent risks. The risks associated with freedom guaranteed under the rule of law, define America as a brave and courageous nation. Do you really want to sacrifice that over a small group of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants? The government has the obligation to evidence their reasons for depriving individuals of their freedom for life. That is a cornerstone of America’s democratic republic and founding documents.
Don’t abandon our foundations so easily or quickly out of fear of our enemies. It is courage in the face of our enemies that should define us, not fear.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:18 PMGeorge in SC, what an illogical argument devoid of the reality and facts. The evidence against bin Laden is overwhelming and provided to us by his own video images and tapes, seized documents and intercepted communications.
Your entire argument falls flat.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:25 PMWhy is this court thought of a liberal anyway? All but 2 (Ginsburg and Breyer) were appointed by Republicans.
Posted by: George in SC at June 13, 2008 12:28 PMGee David, what an ignorant response devoid of any evidence of reading comprehension. I didn’t argue that Bin Laden was or was not guilty. That has nothing to do with his right to seek a fair trail in the U.S. if he is detained.
Your entire diatribe is meaningless.
Posted by: George in SC at June 13, 2008 12:34 PMJim T, your comment on the Suspension Clause, (you will be shocked when you read me saying this) is valid as long as America’s borders remain unsecured and al-Queda remains committed to attacking us on our homeland.
It is the one semi-valid Constitutional argument I have heard for those seeking to deny habeas corpus to the prisoners in GITMO. I say semi-valid because, (and I may be wrong here) I believe there has to be a declaration of martial law or state of war by invasion, to trigger that suspension.
But, that is an entirely separate issue from the ruling by the S. Court. Excellent debate point, nonetheless. And yes, you are absolutely right that Democrats in Congress seeking to keep our borders wide open and unsecured would never invoke the Suspension Clause as that would compromise their goal of importing more Democratic voters.
It is a pleasure to agree with you and support your argument for a change.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:42 PMGeorge in SC, your argument implies that bin Laden would surrender in order to advantage himself of the S.C. ruling to stump his cause before the media at his detention hearing.
It is an absurd argument, like I said, in oh so many ways.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:48 PMkctim said: “So, the difference in thinking is whether non American citizens are, or are not, entitled to the same Constitutional rights as American citizens?”
Close. The Constitution enumerates rights. Some rights are extended to all human beings. Some rights are reserved only for U.S. Citizens. Some rights are reserved ONLY for natural born citizens.
The Constitution may be short, but, it is not simple. Which is why quality formal education is required to defend it properly. Sort of leaves GW Bush right where he is, doesn’t it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 12:54 PMDavid
Right! The Constitution does give rights to foreign citizens as well as US citizens. As long as they are here legally and not POWs.
The POWs at Gitmo are are just that, POWs. That means that they were captured during a war in which they were fighting against the United States. As such they don’t have the same rights as a legal foreign resident or visitor. These folks are enemies of the US and will take up arms again against the US the first chance they get.
The Constitution doesn’t give the enemies of this country any rights and the Supreme Court is once again trying to rewrite the Constitution.
BTW, There are rules that govern the treatment of POWs. They’re call the Geneva Convention. And it doesn’t give POWs the right to challenge their incarnation either.
Posted by: Ron Brown at June 13, 2008 01:01 PM“The Constitution enumerates rights. Some rights are extended to all human beings. Some rights are reserved only for U.S. Citizens. Some rights are reserved ONLY for natural born citizens”
Then why the difference of opinions on the court, David?
Where does it break down which ones are for who, so that I can read it more carefully and come to my own opinion?
kctim asked: “Where does it break down which ones are for who, so that I can read it more carefully and come to my own opinion?”
Damn, kctim, read the Constitution. It helps!
“We the People of the United States, in Order to … secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is a general catchall for everyone in the U.S. and its territories, which includes non-citizens, and prisoners in GITMO which is territory under U.S. control. We the People refers to the people within the U.S, who, prior to the signing, were not U.S. citizens, and many were not even State Citzens. Ergo, everyone within the U.S. regardless of citizenship.
President must be natural born citizen. Clear as day!
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Reserved for U.S. citizens.
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” Applicable only to citizens, and further, only to those over 18.
Yesterday’s ruling is now a part of our Constitutional Law. Habeas Corpus shall be extended to POW’s within U.S. territorial control after any invoked suspension due to insurrection or rebellion has ceased.
For further lessons in the U.S. Constitution a charge of $25 per hour shall be required, as well as the homework of actually reading the U.S. constitution with eyes open and mind awake.
I have read the Constitution David. I just wanted to make sure I hadn’t missed the part which says our enemies are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as law abiding US citizens are. I was wanting to know the facts before passing judgement on the ruling.
And, I am sorry to say that I will not need any further lessons on your interpretation of the US Constitution. I can go to kos, moveon, DU or the Obama site and get the same kind of opinionated interpretations for free.
Nice response there also. Didn’t quite expect the typical liberal “I’m better than everybody else” BS for asking a question, but oh well.
Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2008 02:40 PMDavid, you failed to answer his question as to why the court was split.
Roberts thought it was an illegal extension of Habeas Corpus to non-citizens which he deemed as unfounded in the Constitution, previous decisions, or even Common Law.
I’m wondering if Kennedy is now the most powerful court member?
I think the oldest member is 64. I’m not convinced Obama will get to appoint someone.
Posted by: googlumpugus at June 13, 2008 02:59 PMRhinehold, I’d love to hear a more expansive opinion from you.
Posted by: googlumpugus at June 13, 2008 03:02 PMIt is a VERY dangerous situation when any government can detain anyone without a military or criminal court trial, because as we have already seen, some detainees are innocent of any crimes against the U.S. (such as this Canadian, Maher Arar, who was eventually found innocent and released; listen to NPR interview).
Illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S. are entitled to get a criminal court trial.
There’s no doubt some POW detainees are probably dangerous terrorists, and should not be released, but that needs to be determined (either via a military or criminal court trial).
No one (even POWs) should be locked away indefinitely without a trial.
Otherwise, abuses will occur, and innocent detainees (if any) will have little (if any) chance of ever being released.
Whether or not this is a civil right in the U.S. Constitution is not the only issue.
There’s a human rights issue too.
We have a duty to find out if detainees are actual guilty of anything.
BTW, it’s possible that some detainees were actually sold to the U.S..
That’s not unfathomable when you consider the millions of dollars being thrown about for bounties and rewards. Gary Schroen (a former CIA intelligence officer) said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces. U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
kctim, nice cover for having not been able to answer your own question. But, you still did not answer your own question. I did, and accurately. The Constitution enumerates rights, and apportions those rights amongst different categories of people.
Suspected terrorists in GITMO are people, and therefore have Constitutional rights afforded to all people within U.S. territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
You can deny the logical and obvious arguments if you choose. That also is a human right with a small ‘r’.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 03:20 PMDavid Remer,
Yes, I do agree it is a pleasure every once in a while to support the other’s case…and it is also my pleasure to agree to disagree. That’s what this board is for.
Speaking of argumentation and debate…I’m still locked, cocked and ready to rock on the subject of citizens not having the Constitutional right to vote in a Federal election.
Come on…I DARE ya! :-)
Posted by: Jim T at June 13, 2008 03:32 PMRon Brown said: “The Constitution doesn’t give the enemies of this country any rights and the Supreme Court is once again trying to rewrite the Constitution.”
False. Absolutely false! Let me quote you:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT use the word ‘citizen’ in the “due process” passage. It uses the words “person within its jurisdiction”. It is arguable that this passage applies only to the individual states.
But, the 5th Amendment applies to the Federal government, note carefully the semi-colon:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The semicolon is most often used to connect two sentences. Obviously, the sentences ought to be relatively close in content, but other than that you can connect any two sentences with a semicolon.
“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
Again referring to persons, NOT citizens. So your statement is patently false.
Now you can attempt to argue that the GITMO prisoners committed no crime and therefore are not covered by the condition of a criminal case, but that is a self-defeating argument. If they are there for crimes against the U.S. or humanity, and if they are persons, which they are, the reading is very plain.
Just because the U.S. has not always lived up to this condition of the Constitution in the past, is no barrier to the Supreme Court upholding the condition now. Which it did. Stare Decisis applies to previous rulings. It does not apply to unamended and previously unenforced Constitutional provisions. The Court was bound by the language of the Constitution, in this case, if rule of law has any meaning to the Justices.
The conservative justices for all their bluster, cannot cite the Constitution to support their dissent. Which is why they cite their fears as the basis for their dissent instead, one of them invoking a bet that Americans will die as a result of this ruling. How typically Republican, btw.
In this case, it is the Conservative Judges who are attempting to legislate from the Bench rather than rely on the language of the Constitution which the majority opinion clearly does.
Jim T. said: “Come on…I DARE ya! :-)”
That would not be on topic of this article. But, I am confident another article will appear where we may engage each other to the death of one or the other’s argument :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 03:58 PMI wasn’t covering David. I wanted to know if the US Constitution specifically says our enemies are entitled to the same rights as US citizens or not. That was all I wanted to know.
As you could come up with only the “general catchall,” it appears that it does not. My question is answered.
I believe everybody deserves their day in court, btw.
Goog
“Roberts thought it was an illegal extension of Habeas Corpus to non-citizens which he deemed as unfounded in the Constitution, previous decisions, or even Common Law”
Thank you. I don’t always have time to surf news here at work I and appreciate that info.
Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2008 04:02 PMThe authoritarian government in the Movie ‘V for Vendetta’ is built upon secrecy of government actions, and all of the inhumanities that can become consequent to such secrecy.
This is the Catch-22 conservatives and the Bush administration have placed themselves into. They fear having the evidence, or lack of it, against those GITMO prisoners exposed in court, i.e. their secrecy. Hence, they felt compelled to reinterpret the Constitution to fit their need for secrecy, which embroiled them in a legal controversy that pitted them against the US Constitution. It is a healthy sign for America that the Constitution prevailed against GW Bush and his administration’s authoritarian need for secrecy.
This whole scenario would have fit seemlessly into the script of V for Vendetta.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 04:04 PMkctim said: “I wasn’t covering David. I wanted to know if the US Constitution specifically says our enemies are entitled to the same rights as US citizens or not.”
Then you should have asked that question. But, you didn’t. The question you asked in response to my comment was as follows:
DRR: “The Constitution enumerates rights. Some rights are extended to all human beings. Some rights are reserved only for U.S. Citizens. Some rights are reserved ONLY for natural born citizens”kctim: Where does it break down which ones are for who, so that I can read it more carefully and come to my own opinion?
It does appear you are covering for having asked the wrong question or, having received an answer that you did not want to hear. I responded to the question you asked.
As to your other question: Why the justices disagreed, that couldn’t be more obvious, to me. The dissenting justices side (unconstitutionally I will add) with the Bush argument that fear justifies suspending the Constitution and rule of law. Some of these same justices sided with the Bush administration’s act of legislating through signing statements, completely circumventing the US Congress. Clearly an unconstitutional act. Some of these Justices do not hold the view that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but, rather, the Executive Branch is the Supreme Law of the Land in times of national fear, which of course harkens back to Hamiltonian philosophy which sought to reinstate the powers of the authoritarian monarchy with some modifications.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 04:20 PMI can’t believe a veteran Senator of our government just said: “”The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”
Really Sen. McCain. Worse than than locking thousands of Americans in internment camps because they had Japanese ancestry? (Korematsu v. United States — 1944)
Worse than forcing African Americans to sit at the back of the bus? (Plessy v. Ferguson — 1896)
Worse than than slavery? (Dred Scott v. Sanford — 1857)
I guess we know where McCain stands now. He is either as ignorant of history as GW Bush, or his judgment is as seriously impaired, or BOTH. NO Bush 3rd term. No Bush 3rd Term. No Bush 3rd Term.
Guess I made my point. Finis.
Really, Senator McCain?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 06:35 PMDavid,
While I agree that Robert’s dissent veered off into the bizarre with the statement about possible resultant deaths, I don’t think he’d say that was the basis of his dissent.
For those that wondered:
Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sueter, Stevens, and Breyer concurred.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
Posted by: googlumpugus at June 13, 2008 11:01 PMgoo said: “I don’t think he’d say that was the basis of his dissent.”
Of course not. You don’t get to be SC Justice by avoiding an education in sophistry.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 11:23 PMkennedy was Appointed by Reagan and Stevens by Ford i believe, kennedy seems like a Level Headed Chap.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 14, 2008 12:06 AMDavid,
Nowhere does it state in the Constitution that the enemies of the US have the same rights as the citizens and legal aliens. To try to use the 14th and 5th amendments to give them these rights is twisting the Constitution to make it say what ya want it to.
The only rights the Gitmo POWs have are the ones given them by the Geneva Convention. And sense they don’t go by it, it could be argued that they don’t even have these rights. But I reckon there aint nothing wrong with letting them have them. And the Geneva Convention has never given POWs the right of Habeas Corpus.
There’s a difference between human rights and Constitutional rights. I won’t deny the POWs at Gitmo their human rights. But they aint entitled to and should not get right under the Constitution.
Ron Brown
“Nowhere does it state in the Constitution that the enemies of the US have the same rights as the citizens and legal aliens.”
Then again Ron where in the constitution does it say they do not have the same rights as the citizens and legal aliens.
Another long held tradition of the justice system is the presumption of innocence.It seems you have these people convicted without a judge or jury. If these people at Gitmo are all enemies that have committed a crime why dont we simply show proof of the crime to a judge and jury and sentence them accordingly?
Posted by: j2t2 at June 14, 2008 01:16 AMBoy, that Supreme Court is so liberal that before long they will try to tell us that criminals have constitutional rights…
…oh, wait…never mind.
Posted by: RMD at June 14, 2008 02:35 AMRon Brown,
You keep saying POW; however, President Bush and his administration have for the record stated that the detainees at Gitmo do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention because they do not belong or claim any State. And while Personally I propose that they be called Non-Human, something tells me that the Courts of the Land and Your Grandparents are not even going to let me start that Argument of Logic and Reason.
Ron Brown,
You keep saying POW; however, President Bush and his administration have for the record stated that the detainees at Gitmo do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention because they do not belong or claim any State. And while Personally I propose that they be called Non-Human, something tells me that the Courts of the Land and Your Grandparents are not even going to let me start that Argument of Logic and Reason.
While I believe the court made the right decision, on a common sense basis (one of which David made eloquently here), I think the dissent is equally valid that this is an extension of Habeas not founded in precedent. Precedent cannot be the only guidepost here.
As I believe the Constitution is a living document, and being unrealistically stuck in 18th century interpretations is just plain stupid, I think the majority, and significantly Kennedy, has a sense of the wrong being committed by the indefinite detention of these men.
The court provides simply an avenue for some jurisprudence here. It is doubtful, in spite of the dissenters fear mongering, that those who are known to be dangerous will be released. If we do not reasonably know they are dangerous, they shouldn’t be held.
Bush, I am sure, believes he has taken the right path to protect America. I, and most of the world, disagree. America has not only been protected by her oceans and weaponry, it has always been protected by her destiny with justice. The rise of America, especially since WWII has been concurrent with her sense of speaking truth to power. Without that, we will simply seek out the same arc as any tyranny. It’s the difference between us and Rome, and our real hope.
Posted by: googlumpus at June 14, 2008 10:38 AMHenry, please explain your obsession with Grandparents.
I would love to hear a logical argument for calling fellow hominids non-human.
My grandparents won’t stop you. I may, however, find it laughable.
Posted by: googlumpus at June 14, 2008 10:44 AMThis Supreme Court ruling doesn’t give anyone a get out of jail free card. It simply gives the detainees an opportunity to have their cases heard in a court of law. They are able to have legal representation, see the evidence against them and respond appropriately. Evidence gained through “enhanced interogation techniques” (torture) is excluded. As President Bush says, “we don’t torture,” so that souldn’t be an issue.
I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Posted by: RMD at June 14, 2008 11:09 AMj2t2
The POWs were taken prisoner in war fighting against the US. They DO have the protection of the Geneva Convention regardless of what Bush says. As for their crime, if ya insist on one, it’s being an enemy of the US. But POWs are not criminals as such. They are just captured enemy combatants. They don’t have to be charged with a crime to be held prisoner.
Henry
Once again Bush shows he doesn’t have the slightest idea how to run a war. The prisoners at Gitmo ARE POWs and ARE entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. But they are not entitled to the protection of the US Constitution.
BTW, My grandparents wouldn’t care what ya called the POWs. If they were still living that is.
RMD
The evidence against them is they were taken prisoner while fighting against the US. That’s enough to detain them as long as we’re at war.
Ron Brown,
The problem with your POW analogy, is that POW’s are released after the end of the war. Mission Accomplished flew long ago. The Taliban are in exile, and Sadam has been hung. The “war” is over. By your logic, it’s time for release or War crimes tribunals.
Posted by: googlumpus at June 14, 2008 12:01 PMRon
The administration argued that they were not POWs a few years back. We cant have it both ways. We certainly cant have an administration as bad as this one screwing around with Habeas Corpus.
To deny that Habeas Corpus is a right of any and all people(as this administration did) is way to Hilteresque for me.
goo said: “I think the dissent is equally valid that this is an extension of Habeas not founded in precedent.”
One has to be careful about the use of precedent here. When talking about Constitutional issues, precedent (which stare decisis is based upon) refers to written law precedent, NOT precedent of previous action or behavior.
Murder has been taking place in this country long before the Constitution was drafted. That precedent of action has no legal basis for defending the action.
I could be wrong here, (I’m not a legal scholar) but I am unaware of any S.C. ruling precedent, and there is definitely no Amendment to the Constitution that ever abrogated the Constitutional provision for Habeas Corpus for all persons, save for insurrection and rebellion. The fact that Habeas Corpus was not exercised in the past regarding POW’s is a precedent of action and behavior, not of written law, to my knowledge.
And we are a nation governed by rule of law, not actions of persons, establishing precedent. In concept anyway. So I would argue, that your comment that this is an extension of Habeas Corpus not founded in precedent is true in historical behavior terms in time of war, but not true in the realm of the rule of law. The historical behavior basis for precedent has no standing in our body of law. Hence, abrogating Habeas Corpus for POW’s never had a legal standing, nor test like the one facing the Sup. Ct., where war is declared and the war ends.
Terrorism is, in and of itself, not an act of war unless perpetrated by a nation. It is a criminal act of one or several persons. Habeas Corpus has always been written to extend to persons charged with a crime. This is one of the abject failings of the Bush administration in subverting the legal definitions to its own ends. And why the Sup. Ct. majority voted as they did.
To define all acts of terrorism as an act of war regardless of who the perpetrators are, leads to the government having total authoritarian control to make people disappear from public and private life on nothing more than the accusation of their having participated in a conspiracy to or act of terrorism. One of the most dangerous actions against our Constitutional principles our Constitution has ever faced in terms of individual Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free of undue interference by the government.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 12:50 PMRon Brown
I know you know this, but let me remind you that you know nothing of the evidence against any specific detainee or the circumstances of his “capture.”
Posted by: RMD at June 14, 2008 12:52 PMRMD, quite right! Hence, the need for Habeas Corpus in the first place, to prevent those in power from imprisoning people on a whim or unvalidated suspicions, as was the case with King George’s executive authority over the Colonialists.
Nothing is more bedrock to the founding of this nation’s principles than Habeas Corpus. No implementation of the law is more closely aligned with the Declaration of Independence’s and the Constitution’s ideals than Habeas Corpus.
Points completely lost on the GOP and Bush administration.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 02:29 PMgooglumpus
Al Qaeda is still our there and still fighting against the US. So we’re still at war regardless of Bushes ‘Mission Accomplished’. And we still are at war with terrorist.
The POWs are terrorist so they can’t be released until terrorism is defeated.
j2t2
So now after 7 1/2 years of saying Bush is stupid and full of it ya want to give something Bush said any merit.
Fact is Bush is full of it when it comes to the POWs.
RMD
They’re POWs and there doesn’t need to be any evidence to hold them.
OK! Lets forget that the POWs are our enemies and hate the US and everything is stands for. Lets give them their Habeas Corpus. And let’s release the poor babies.
I’ll be willing to bet that within a year most of them will be involved in some sort of attack against the US. So yeah, lets make sure the poor little babies get released.
“So now after 7 1/2 years of saying Bush is stupid and full of it ya want to give something Bush said any merit.
Fact is Bush is full of it when it comes to the POWs.”
Yes Bush is full of it. He played his cards and lost the game. However he hasnt acknowledged that prisioners are entitled to the benefits of the Geneva Convention. He chose to make the case that they were not entitled to any thing. Tyranny is what caused the constitution to come into existence, why do you think the constitution protects those that rule by tyranny? What choices did Bush and his co-conspiritors leave? You cant have it both ways.
It was his administration that for some unknown reason saw fit to deny habeas corpus to criminals not prisioners of war. To overly complicate this issue is the doings of the Bush administration and those that have marched lockstep to the beat of this drum, the neocons and the conservatives. HAd they followed convention and declared these people to be POW’s we would not have had a decision from the SCOTUS on the issue of enemy combatents.
After the track record of ths administration it would seem to me that the conservatives would have been able to see the light long before now and got tough with the neocons and fixed this problem internally before it got to this point. OF course they didnt, instead they chose to march lockstep with this errounous attempt at rewriting the constitution. To make matters worse they are now defendoing Chief Justice Roberts and his legislating from the bench strict constitutionalist politics before justice followers on the court. Where is your moral outrage over this abuse Ron?
Either clean up your own house conservatives or prepare to have it cleaned by others. Check your authoritarian misinterpretations of the constitution at the door or be prepared to have them checked for you. Afterall you guys claim to be the the experts on upholding the constitution, your running the show so practice what you preach for a change. If there was a tiny little speck of honor amongst the conservatives they would call for the impeachment of the 4 dissenting justices themselves. I wont hold my breath waiting for this speck of honor to emerge from the conservative camp though and I’m thankful that the SCOTUS has got it right this time.
Ron, you don’t even know these people. You know nothing at all about most of them. Yet, you trust this Bush administration to tell you that you should believe that the Bush administration has valid reasons for detaining them? If that is true, then you shouldn’t be concerned at all about them being released after a detention hearing in federal court.
There is a major logical flaw in your comment. Either we are sure they are a danger, and one can only be sure if one has evidence, in which case Habeas Corpus rights do NOT pose a problem. Or, the Bush admninistration DOES NOT have evidence to support detaining them, in which case, there is no basis for confidence that they are a threat.
Which is it, Ron? They both can’t be true at the same time, Ron. Doesn’t believing the Bush administration give you a headache? Would me! Hell, believing Clinton began giving me a headache in his second term. I stopped believing him and threw my aspirin bottle away. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 04:59 AMRon Brown
Do your homework. The detainees at Guantanamo are not POWs they are “illegal enemy combatants.” If they were POWs there would be no question of the terms of their confinement, the Geneva Conventions would apply and your arguments would have some validity.
Following your logic, if the Administration could detain anyone who could “be involved in some sort of attack against the US,” anyone could be detained. Even you. This administration already tried to deny Habeas Corpus to an American citizen who was arrested on American soil (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.) Think about it. Why are you so willing to give the government that much power? Are you that scared of terrorists? Why has Habesa Corpus been a fixture of our constitution and English common law for over 1000 years? I guess I’m just a little more suspicious of government power grabs than you are.
They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew….
Posted by: RMD at June 15, 2008 09:18 AMRon Brown, In WWII there were skirmishes in the hills of Italy and in distant islands from japan for years after Germany’s and Japan’s surrender. Are you suggesting those wars never ended?
You are confusing an insurgency problem with war. You are confusing a criminal act of terrorism with war. Are we at war with the mysterious third man in Oklahoma? He has never been “caught?”
Bush now intends to try to shore up his legacy with a push against Pakistan. While this should have been done (rather than pursuit of Sadam) long ago, Pakistan is an exporter of terror. Pakistan has real nuclear weapons. It is reported by some that the Pakistani government is secretly green lighting this. Why has Bush waited 5 years too do this?
Posted by: googlumpugus at June 15, 2008 12:12 PMThe problem here is the wrong term has been applied to the folks at Guantanamo. The folks being held at Gitmo are not detainees. They are POWs! Nothing more. Nothing less. They were captured in a war fighting against the United States. As POWs they ARENOT entitled to protection under our Constitution sense they aren’t legal residents of the US. They ARE however as POWs entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. There’s a difference even if y’all don’t want to admit it.
I don’t think Bush has the slightest idea what to call the prisoners or if they’re even actually there, much less what to do with them.
Illegal combatants? Just what the hell is that? Does that mean they can’t actually kill ya in combat? Or ya can’t kill them? Who ever come up with that silly term has never seen combat.
Ron your president was the one that came up with this illegal combatants thing in order to deny Geneva Convention rights to them.
Its not what we want its what we are stuck with as the result of the previous actions of this administration.
This approach must have been fine with the righties that voted this administration back into office in ‘04. Why are they the ones whining now is what I can’t figure out.
No, Ron. You are wrong. When our wars end, we repatriate our POW’s. We took over the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, those wars are over. We won, didn’t you get the news?
Here is another line of valid reasoning. The 9/11 terrorists represented no country, therefore, except in the mind of Bush et.al., were never entered a war with Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the U.S. A band of criminals did who were headquartered in Afghanistan, and they were not the heads of government in Afghanistan organizing the attacks on the U.S. Therefore, those we did combat with were criminals, not prisoners of war. No war between nations was ever declared except the wars Bush and our government declared on Afghanistan and Iraq.
A band of criminals attacked the U.S., and the U.S. government declared war against nations as a result. The invasion of Afghanistan got a pass in world international opinion due to Afghanistan offering safe harbor to those criminals. Iraq had nothing to whatsoever to do with the criminals who attacked the U.S. and posed no threat toward the U.S. homeland.
These facts cannot be ignored in discussing the GITMO detainees. In America we DO NOT arrest and imprison people due to their mind set, beliefs, or dislike toward us or others. They must commit a crime, and action which is illegal, before they can be detained, and they have a right to have the evidence of their illegal action reviewed by a court.
The Supreme Court has upheld this concept now 3 times in 3 separate rulings covering different aspects of the same issue, GITMO detainee’s rights. They have rights, Ron, regardless of your prejudged hatred of them based on no evidence or knowledge whatsoever as to what crimes they may or may not have committed.
And it is documented by military persons working with them, that many of these detainees were NOT detained for acts of hostilities toward Americans. They were detained on the word of what others said they may or may not have done as acts and deeds. Which leaves wide open the possibility that many of them are innocent of any hostilities toward Americans or anyone else for that matter, since those reporting them were paid bounties for reporting on others.
Money is a powerful incentive to report anyone of anything for dishonorable persons with greed as incentive. And if you were one of these unfortunate people detained for six years away from family and friends for no other reason that someone else thought turning you in could profit them with US Greenbacks? What would you say of yourself as a GITMO detainee then?
j2t2
First, no true conservative ever cast a vote for Bush. And like it or not he’s your President too. Just like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were my Presidents when they were in office. And I didn’t like it anymore than I like Bush being my President now. That is unless that is your a citizen of another country.
It figures he would have come up with such a stupid name as illegal combatants for the POWs. But I wouldn’t put it past a lot of folks on the far left either. They’re the ones that came up with the equally stupid detainee name for them.
As for why the Republicans are whinnig now, you’ll have to ask a Republican.
David said: No, Ron. You are wrong. When our wars end, we repatriate our POW’s. We took over the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, those wars are over. We won, didn’t you get the news?
Then why the hell are we still fighting and dieing in those countries if the war is over? I don’t care what it’s called by politicians or anyone else. When US troops are fighting and dieing it’s a war. And they’re fighting and dieing in both countries. Or haven’t ya got the news? I reckon the war aint over yet.
David said: Iraq had nothing to whatsoever to do with the criminals who attacked the U.S. and posed no threat toward the U.S. homeland.
That can’t be proved anymore than it can be proved Iraq did. Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot, Saddam said he didn’t. That makes it fact right there.
Fact is I don’t necessarily believe Iraq was a threat by itself. But I don’t necessarily believe it wasn’t. But I do believe that it did harbor terrorist. And that made it a threat.
I also think a lot of other Muslim countries are harboring terrorist.
“First, no true conservative ever cast a vote for Bush.”
haha hahahaha hahahahaha. Good one Ron. Keep sipping the kool aid. Denial is only the first stage Ron you have a ways to go.
” And like it or not he’s your President too.”
Yes he is, perhaps I should have said “our” instead of “your” but the point was the POTUS set the course of action that has us where we are today. This was known prior to the ‘04 elections yet the conservatives voted him back into office or are you actually suggesting the liberals voted enmasse for Bush in ‘04.
“It figures he would have come up with such a stupid name as illegal combatants for the POWs. But I wouldn’t put it past a lot of folks on the far left either.”
No you probably wouldn’t Ron but as we can tell from the hatred and predjudice in your comments about us lefties we would get the blame regardless of actual facts. Much like your blaming the Bush reelection on anyone but the conservatives despite facts to the contrary.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 16, 2008 01:31 PMRon Brown asked: “Then why the hell are we still fighting and dieing in those countries if the war is over?”
For the same reason our soldiers continued to engage combat with Germans and Japanese after the signing of the Articles of Surrender. The entire conflicts in Korea and Viet Nam were fought as police actions, not legal definitions as wars.
Wars are between nations. Politicians can call things what they want for political reasons, like the War on Drugs, but, in legal fact, these are police actions, not Wars defined as conflicts declared by nation’s seeking utter submission and surrender from each other.
Our ‘wars’ in Afghanistan and Iraq, are over. Their governments surrendered to our government’s dictates and designs. Is any part of these historical facts still in doubt in your mind?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2008 03:05 PMRon Brown said: “When US troops are fighting and dieing it’s a war. “
Really? Even when our soldiers are being used as police? By your definition, the calling out of the national guard to shoot students at Kent State was an act of war upon the American people by their own government. Sorry, Ron, your definition does not hold water. It’s your opinion, but, it is not a fact in law or history.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2008 03:08 PMDavid said: Iraq had nothing to whatsoever to do with the criminals who attacked the U.S. and posed no threat toward the U.S. homeland.
That can’t be proved anymore than it can be proved Iraq did. Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot, Saddam said he didn’t.
Evidence, Ron. Obviously your opinions require none. But, for the rest of the rational world, evidence, at least a shred of it, is required before postulating that something is true. There is not a shred of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Your are entitled to your opinion, Ron. But you are not entitled to alter reality and historical facts, without elementary and damning rebuttal such as I have offered.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2008 03:12 PMGooglumpus,
Sorry for the delayed response, but have had trouble with my internet connection.
As a person who is coming of age to be a grandparent you might want to know that it is them that the Courts of the Land and the Establishment look at to set the Principles and Standards of Society. That is unless you are willing to tell the 10-year-old children of society that they do not have to listen to the Authority of their parents and be governed accordingly.
As far as your grandparents not minding if I am non-human (i.e. Pure Citizen). Please, knowing that the word Human is Man-made. As a Child of the 70’s can you prove to me that you are Human without using the Logic and Reason of Man? For without Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge (i.e. Being Human) you do not have no Rights. In fact, Government and Society states that a person is mentally incompetent.
So please go to my personal website and read “America Its time to Awaken” and “Regardless of Race, Color, or Creed” than if you have any questions you will need to seek someone who can explain the Argument held by our Grandparents and the Courts of the Land against the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders of America. For to say a word at that point, I stand the possibility of taking away the Devils’ Unalienable Right to tempt Man.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 16, 2008 08:14 PMRon Brown,
Why I am not going to disagree with you, the status of POW refers to those citizens captured from a nation you are at war with. The fact that many in Gitmo elected not to claim Citizenship of Afghanistan makes them a Criminal of Society instead of a POW. And why I cannot tell you why that matters in the Eyes of the Courts of the Land, I do believe that President Bush royally screwed up when he did not immediately put the Terrorist on trail for Crimes against Humanity.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
