Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It doesn't require a criminal trial to hold someone as a POW until the end of the war.

No, but it requires a tribunal to determine if a detainee is being properly held as a POW in the first place.

Yes. Thus the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

joefromchicago wrote:

The SCOTUS has now said twice (in Hamdi and Boumediene) that the military commissions set up by congress don't afford adequate protection for the detainees' rights.

Do you mean the process the government uses to separate combatant from civilian?

So far as I know, they have not ruled on the military commissions set up by Congress. Those commissions are only just starting -- the Supremes probably won't see that issue until after people start appealing guilty verdicts.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If they show that any of these guys were fighting for the enemy (something that can simply be achieved with testimony from US soldiers who captured them) then that should be good enough to ship them off to a POW camp (whether the camp is at Guantanamo or Leavenworth).

Well, if it were so easy, why hasn't the Bush administration tried all of the detainees already?

They have. That is what the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were.

I expect that these habeas proceedings will mostly confirm the decisions already reached by the CSRTs.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It doesn't require a criminal trial to hold someone as a POW until the end of the war.

No, but it requires a tribunal to determine if a detainee is being properly held as a POW in the first place.

Yes. Thus the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

Not good enough. Thus the Boumediene decision.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It doesn't require a criminal trial to hold someone as a POW until the end of the war.

No, but it requires a tribunal to determine if a detainee is being properly held as a POW in the first place.

Yes. Thus the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

Not good enough. Thus the Boumediene decision.

It looked to me like they found fault with the process for appealing the CSRTs, not the CSRTs themselves.

Quote:

Although we make no judgment as to whether the CSRTs, as currently constituted, satisfy due process standards, we agree with petitioners that, even when all the parties involved in this process act with diligence and in good faith, there is considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact. This is a risk inherent in any process that, in the words of the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, is "closed and accusatorial." See Bismullah III, 514 F. 3d, at 1296 (Ginsburg, C. J., concurringin denial of rehearing en banc). And given that the consequence of error may be detention of persons for the duration of hostilities that may last a generation or more, this is a risk too significant to ignore.

For the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy in this context, the court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the CSRT proceedings. This includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the Government's evidence against the detainee. It also must have the authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding. Federal habeas petitioners long have had the means to supplement the record on review, even in the post conviction habeas setting. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 313 (1963), overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U. S. 1, 5 (1992). Here that opportunity is constitutionally required.

Quote:

The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA §7,28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007). Accordingly, both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact. Our holding with regard to exhaustion should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs. The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine a detainee's status before a court entertains that detainee's habeas corpus petition. The CSRT process is the mechanism Congress and the President set up to deal with these issues. Except in cases of undue delay, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant's habeas corpus petition at least until after the Department, acting via the CSRT, has had a chance to review his status.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

It looked to me like they found fault with the process for appealing the CSRTs, not the CSRTs themselves.

That's an integral part of the package. In Hamdi, the SCOTUS said "give the detainees habeas or something that is the equivalent of habeas." Congress responded with the CSRTs and a limited right of appeal to the DC circuit court. In Boumediene, the supreme court said "not good enough."

0 Replies

McCain and Lindsay Graham will try to subvert the decision by creating a new National Court.

HUMAN RIGHTS
Restoring The Constitution
In a landmark decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections -- a time-honored principle entitling all who are imprisoned to challenge the basis for their confinement in a court of law -- apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. "We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Guantanamo "review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus," he added. The decision in Boumediene v. Bush "is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's flawed detention policies," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated. President Bush, unsurprisingly, disagreed with the decision. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," he said. On Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol hinted that Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would introduce legislation undermining the decision by setting up a "national security court." Rejecting such calls to reopen debate on the issue, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) remarked, "Follow the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says these people have right to know why they're being held and what the charges are. That's so basic and fundamental."

STRIKING DOWN POOR LAWS: "The Court repudiated the efforts of Congress and the Bush administration to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and to substitute constitutionally-defective procedures in their place," noted Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast. The decision found that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, mandated by Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, do not constitute an adequate substitute for habeas, resulting in a "considerable risk of error" in the tribunal's decisions. The Court declared unconstitutional Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, legislation that allowed Bush to imprison indefinitely any "unlawful combatant" and suspend the habeas writ for detainees. The MCA abolished habeas "despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only 'in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion,'" the Court noted. The decision does not address, however, whether the Bush administration had been "holding a single person illegally" at Guantanamo. "[O]ur opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners' detention," Kennedy wrote. "That is a matter yet to be determined."

americanprogressaction.org

0 Replies

Just a dumb question, if prisoners captured on the battlefield deserve the rights in a civilian court, how come are we trying to find and kill Osama Bin Laden? Since when can we try to kill suspects without arresting them and giving them a fair trial?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Just a dumb question, if prisoners captured on the battlefield deserve the rights in a civilian court, how come are we trying to find and kill Osama Bin Laden? Since when can we try to kill suspects without arresting them and giving them a fair trial?

I hope that if we do find OBL, he is given a fair trial and punished accordingly.

It would be rather more fulfilling, then if he was simply killed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What has happened to the evidence, cyclops, I can't imagine any conclusive evidence lying around, and what if this guy is not read his rights when arrested? Any fingerprints, DNA, etc.? How do you convict someone on circumstantial evidence?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What has happened to the evidence, cyclops, I can't imagine any conclusive evidence lying around, and what if this guy is not read his rights when arrested? Any fingerprints, DNA, etc.? How do you convict someone on circumstantial evidence?

I think that he has admitted to being behind the September 11th attacks on more then one occasion; I think that stands as pretty good evidence against him, and I doubt he would deny it in court.

The military is not required to read people rights before arresting them. Miranda warnings do not apply outside the USA, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Can the military even arrest a civilian suspect of a crime? And why don't the Miranda warnings apply? Isn't that a violation of rights? He admitted to favoring 9/11, but was he personally involved? Advocating something does not prove guilt. And even being involved does not prove direct involvement. And prove the guy in the videos was actually him, and that he voluntarily made those statements. Maybe somebody had a gun pointed at him?

A trial would be fun, cyclops, if for no other reason to illustrate absurdity with more absurdity.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Can the military even arrest a civilian suspect of a crime? And why don't the Miranda warnings apply? Isn't that a violation of rights? He admitted to favoring 9/11, but was he personally involved? Advocating something does not prove guilt. And even being involved does not prove direct involvement. And prove the guy in the videos was actually him, and that he voluntarily made those statements. Maybe somebody had a gun pointed at him?

A trial would be fun, cyclops, if for no other reason to illustrate absurdity with more absurdity.

I think your posts are doing a pretty good job of illustrating absurdity.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, Osama is presumed innocent, as any other civilian. His not guilty until proven guilty in a court of law. Good luck.

And if he is innocent, how come every single Democrat, including Obama, has been criticizing Bush for not killing him already?

You guys are a bunch of hypocrits, and idiots.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cyclops, Osama is presumed innocent, as any other civilian. His not guilty until proven guilty in a court of law. Good luck.

And if he is innocent, how come every single Democrat, including Obama, has been criticizing Bush for not killing him already?

You guys are a bunch of hypocrits, and idiots.

At least I can spell hypocrite.

I have criticized Bush for not catching or killing OBL, yes. If he is killed, so be it. But alive is better then dead, so that he can face trial for his actions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Intentionally killing someone that is presumed innocent is a crime, cyclops.

At least be consistent, even when you are wrong.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Intentionally killing someone that is presumed innocent is a crime, cyclops.

At least be consistent, even when you are wrong.

That depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

If we walk in and find OBL chilling out in a palace in Saudi Arabia, and proceed to shoot him in the head with no warning, that would be murder, for sure.

If we kill him during a firefight in which special forces are storming the house that he is in, not so much.

Surely you don't need this explained to you? A child understands such things.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Another thought, cyclops, which the Supreme Court apparently did not think of, the very fact that we are rounding up civilian criminals, not enemies on the battlefield under the rules of war, it invalidates the presidents orders to send the military to Afghanistan to round up Al Qaida. After all, these are not enemies on a battlefield under the rules of war, they are criminals, common criminals, cyclops. We need to be sending investigators and the police or FBI into those areas in conjunction with the law enforcement authorities in that country.

This is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

Besides, once you bring any one of these people into court, where do you find an unbiased court or jury to hear the case?

The slippery slope is very slippery, and it is big, and the Supreme Court decision was stupid, stupid, stupid, no way around it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Just a dumb question, if prisoners captured on the battlefield deserve the rights in a civilian court, how come are we trying to find and kill Osama Bin Laden? Since when can we try to kill suspects without arresting them and giving them a fair trial?

This may be a valid question. It would be great if we could capture and try him.

Keep in mind that, in a number of tapes and recordings, Osama has admitted his guilt relative to 9/11.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The slippery slope is very slippery, and it is big, and the Supreme Court decision was stupid, stupid, stupid, no way around it.

Just a simple question for you here okie, let's say you have to go with a decision made by the Supreme Court or the US Congress and they disagree, which are you more likely to favor?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
The slippery slope is very slippery, and it is big, and the Supreme Court decision was stupid, stupid, stupid, no way around it.
Just a simple question for you here okie, let's say you have to go with a decision made by the Supreme Court or the US Congress and they disagree, which are you more likely to favor?

I may not favor either one, dys. I will favor what I think is correct. However of course if I was in a position of authority, I would have to make a policy that is in agreement with the laws of the land. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law or makes a ruling in which they claim a law is not valid or does not apply, then I have to go with the courts. I wouldn't be happy about it however. That is what Bush is doing, although he is not happy about it.

I could envision a doomsday scenario however in which if I was president and imminent destruction was about to take place, and if violating the Supreme Court was necessary, I would violate it to save the country. I used to think such a scenario would not have been possible, but with the idiocy of the courts, I think it is in fact possible, although not likely. Most of the negative effects brought about by the courts are delayed over a long period of time, and so you just have to abide by the law.

And remember, the president has war powers that are always there in the background, although there is much disagreement just how far reaching or applicable they are in today's circumstances. But I think the question I just raised is valid, as silly as it may seem, why wage war if the people we are capturing are common criminals. Things are totally out of sync here within the government, and I think it is the Supreme Court that has totally gone off the deep end.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

okie wrote:
Just a dumb question, if prisoners captured on the battlefield deserve the rights in a civilian court, how come are we trying to find and kill Osama Bin Laden? Since when can we try to kill suspects without arresting them and giving them a fair trial?

This may be a valid question. It would be great if we could capture and try him.

Keep in mind that, in a number of tapes and recordings, Osama has admitted his guilt relative to 9/11.

This may be a valid question.....? Laughing

Yes, among lots of valid questions basic to this fiasco. Is it up to okie to ask them, or is the court that out of touch? Unfortunately, they must be.

0 Replies

Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know