| Guantanamo Court Decision Rejects Bush's View of Authority |
|
|
|
| by Carolyn Barta | Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:02 AM |
|
The 5-4 decision is the third Spreme Court rejection of the White House's treatment of prisoners it deems enemy combatants. Taken together, the WSJ writes, they amount to a repudiation of President Bush's view that the 9/11 attacks imbued him with sweeping authority to set aside civil liberties, as President Lincoln did during the Civil War and President Roosevelt did during World War II. President Bush, on a European tour, said the administration will abide by the court's split decision. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," he said. And Attorney General Michael Mukasey said today, in an AP story, that the decision will unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom but won't affect the military trials planned for some terrorism suspects. By removing the legal advantage of detaining prisoners there, the decision increases the likelihood that the next president will move to shutter the facilities, which have drawn criticism abroad, and move the prisoners. The New York Times, however, writes that while the court stripped away the legal premise for Guantanamo, the remote camp is not expected to close anytime soon.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (4)
...
written by Grrr , June 13, 2008 This is really good news. The whole idea that because they where on "foreign soil" meant that our laws do not apply is just so silly. Even the IRS would laugh at that analysis. Then for people to get all indignant about it is equally silly. I didn't read this opinion, but as my memory serves me correctly, didn't the supreme court say that it was legal to invade Panama & control their soil to arrest pineapple face? I mean, you can't have it both ways. I am perplexed by Scalia opining that this would lead to more americans dying as part of his dissent. Talk about judicial activism. Gitmo is a tactical & PR nightmare & needs to be bulldozed into the ocean. For those that say that Gitmo has made us safe by preventing attacks? You can't prove a negitive so you get no points.
...
written by maximus , June 14, 2008 The majority's opinion is absurd. It contradicts the Court's own 1950 decision dealing with the exact same issue. More importantly it contradicts the Constitution, and over 300 years of common law precedent. Cases are not supposed to be decided on a justice's personal ideas about fairness. They should be decided on the basis of the Constitution and well-settled precedent. If I were the President, I would implement this ridiculous ruling by immediately releasing all Gitmo detainess. I would place them on military transports and return them to the same location they were found - the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would then give them the chance to die for their evil beliefs. And in future battlefield engagements, I would advise my field commanders to take no live prisoners. No prisons, no habeas, no lawyers, no problems.
...
written by ElHombre , June 14, 2008 Let's step back a minute and look at the forest. The actual reason for the Bush admin attempts to deny any rights has nothing to due with 'forging a new way to fight the WoT'. Regular legal procedures (perhaps slightly modified) would do the trick nicely. The problem is the elephant in the room. A trial would have to involve allowing the defendant AND THE PUBLIC access to the evidence. That evidence was obtained through torture. THAT is the key sticking point. It would mean that those involved would face some severe (and justified) legal trouble, to say the least.
...
written by RelicMM , June 16, 2008 The liberal 5/4 decisions have erased the checks and balances,and threaten our Constitution. Scalia is right, many American military lives will be lost if we can no longer interrogate enemy terrorists that have no national identity and do not fall under jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions. Giving terrorists the same rights as an American citizen is absolutely insane. Help them become martyrs, though it may be quite a shock when they find out there are no virgins in hell. Write comment
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention before a federal judge, a historic decision that rebuffs the Bush administration's years-long effort to curtail the legal rights of terrorism suspects. The Wall Street 
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
