Supreme Court Rules Detainees Now Have Legal Rights
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Guantanamo Bay, Law, Supreme Court, Terrorism, The War On Terrorism, WarBig, big news.
The Supreme Court restored habeas rights for enemy combatants, and thereby acknowledged that the “War on Terrorism” has no discernible end and so detainees should be able to challenge indefinite detention.
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.”
Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.
The dissenters put it this way…
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.”
First off, Scalia’s prediction may ultimately prove to be true, but it’s certainly not supported by recent history. Remember, terrorist acts and terrorism is on the rise in our post 9/11 world. Because during that time we’ve been kidnapping people from all over the world and detaining them indefinitely. One could easily argue that our willingness to do things that seem to directly contradict our claims of being a free society make it easier for terrorist organizations to raise money, recruit and carry out their plans.
Second, concerning Roberts’ statement, it doesn’t matter if the procedural protections are greater when we get the exact same result every time: indefinite detention without access to legal counsel.
Obviously I’m happy about the decision because it’s an incredibly important step to regaining our credibility.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 and is filed under Guantanamo Bay, Law, Supreme Court, Terrorism, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Of course, Scalia might have noted (correctly!) that applying habeas corpus to mundane criminal defendants “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” too. Is that a reason to junk it altogether? It would seem be, on his reasoning.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
What wj said. Further, they won’t have to be released if they receive access to some sort of timely enacted due legal process. Its the indefinite detention based solely on some shadowly say-so that troubles most folks who are troubled by it.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Well, this ruling establishes that if you adorn a uniform and only attack military targets, avoiding civilian casualties according to Geneva conventions, you have less rights than a terrorist who hides amongst civilian populations waging an unconventional war by deliberately targeting civilians. If there is ever a conventional conflict in the future, it is better if your soldiers use human shields and do not wear uniforms, and attack soft targets rather than military ones – that is, if you’re worried about the aftermath for your “troops.”
Terrorism is no longer more disdainful than conventional war, in fact, its just a violent crime. It is as if the only way a foreign criminal can obtain the same rights as an American citizen is if they commit an act of terror.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Isn’t kind of sad that our Supreme Court has become nothing more than partisan hackery. We can just about guess the outcome and who will vote what way on every case that goes before them. Maybe we need term limits on them as well.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy–this ruling does nothing of the sort and you know it.
You suggest that all these people who are being held are terrorists and quite simply the only proof you have is from people who have lied so many times they have no credibility.
The ruling requires that the government make a charge against people it wants to hold. If they cannot make a charge, they have no business holding them.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The practical effect here is that Gitmo probably won’t be receiving any more detainees. Which is too bad for the terrorists, because if I were a terrorist I’d take Gitmo over Eqypt or Saudi Arbia anyday. I’ve always wondered why we were running a Club Med for jihadists. Gee, waterboarding or a car battery hooked to genitals and finger nails pulled out – I’ll take my Koran, prayer rug and “coerced interrogation” in the Carribean anyday. Poor terrorists, say hi to rendition.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:42 am
And if a high value target is captured due to classified information that would compromise American counter-terror operations if made known, then the suspect gets released. Perhaps the message being sent by the court is, Take no prisoners.”
June 13th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Jimmy, it must really suck to live life like a scared little punk child at all times. What a disgusting little coward! Keep me safe! Keep me safe!! Take away all my rights just keep me safe! You are truly disgusting! What a gutlesss dispicable little man! You don’t deserve to live in America. The founding fathers put bullets in the heads of cowaardly scum like you….thank god.