Victory for the Constitution

[rain Bard]

All that may be true enough, criddic (I'm staying out of the question of whether it is or not), but it's a political argument or a practical argument, not a constitutional one. The fact is, unless our constitution is amended there's nothing in it to prevent the detainees from the right to receive a fair and speedy trial under the law. OscarGuy's point that Scalia and other dissenters were trying to "legislate from the bench" in this case still stands, and nothing you've said contradicts it.

[criddic3]

Perhaps too predictably, I am against this decision.

These people should NOT be able to use our tax dollars and our federal courts to do this.

I will agree that the Bush administration has taken too long to bring these cases to trial by Military Tribunal. But most of these people, the VAST MAJORITY, are murderers and were caught in battle zones and/or with evidence of plots to do harm.

A good question is Would we allow Bin Laden to challenge his detention in an American federal court with taxpayer money?

Yes, I am echoing conservatives on this issue. It is simply arrogance to allow dangerous people like these, enemy combatants, to possibly go free on technicalities. They will, as Scalia said, probably go back out and kill more American and Iraqi soldiers all while recruiting more with the knowledge that getting caught just means a finite period of time challenging their status to plan their return. Nice job guys.



Edited By criddic3 on 1213845921

[OscarGuy]

So much for Republican assertion that their judges should uphold the constitution. Thankfully the liberal wing had Kennedy's swing vote.

And for further proof that Republicans are full of shit and that the "legislating from the bench" rhetoric only applies to those judges they oppose. Look at Scalia's comment. Personal bias interferes with sound judicial principle.



High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
9 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.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were 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 of whom 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.

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.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

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."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.

A military judge has postponed the first scheduled trial pending the outcome of this case. The trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's onetime driver, had been scheduled to start June 2.

Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15.

President Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.