You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Supreme Court: Gitmo terrorists can challenge detention in civil courts
2008-06-12
The Supreme Court says foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

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.
More from the AP:
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.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices 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."
But it covers America and Americans, sir, not enemy combatants.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who 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 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."
Correct, and it's going to discourage future administrations from taking and keeping dangerous enemy combatants. We'll keep them in places like Balad and Bagram, and we won't tell a soul -- will that make the Court happy?
Posted by:Sherry

#30  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 23:37  

#29  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2008-06-12 22:40  

#28  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-06-12 22:40  

#27  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 22:25  

#26  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Pappy   2008-06-12 21:43  

#25  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: eLarson   2008-06-12 21:14  

#24  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-06-12 18:11  

#23  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 17:04  

#22  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Frank G   2008-06-12 16:22  

#21  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-06-12 15:37  

#20  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: RD   2008-06-12 14:49  

#19  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Gluter Turkeyneck3942   2008-06-12 14:24  

#18  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: tu3031   2008-06-12 13:18  

#17  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Sherry   2008-06-12 12:55  

#16  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 12:37  

#15  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 12:34  

#14  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 12:34  

#13  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-06-12 12:14  

#12  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: airandee   2008-06-12 12:03  

#11  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Hellfish   2008-06-12 11:55  

#10  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 11:45  

#9  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:33  

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Muggsy Gling   2008-06-12 11:20  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: ed   2008-06-12 11:18  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Sherry   2008-06-12 11:16  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:10  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:06  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-06-12 10:55  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Steve   2008-06-12 10:50  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: doc   2008-06-12 10:28  

00:00