SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus
 

Article here.

Personally, I think this will be a good thing in the long run.

I agree. A victory for the rule of law is a good thing.

If the bad guy's goal is to destroy our way of life, dismantling/ignoring/disrespecting our legal system is doing their work *for them*, right?

If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.

I can't agree more. Lets just bag the trials and send them all to their home countries immediately, whether they want to go there or not, and close the place. Burn it down.

Mark today on your calendar. DanaC and I agree on something. I agree with everything she said other than the spelling of the word "defense". These people should be taken to an American court and given access to American defense lawyers, and get all of the same due process as anyone born in America.

Yea, setting the first precident for illegals. But hey, now that the system is working in your favor you want to take advantage of it. What happened to the reams of discussion how the SCOTUS should not exist? But they have spoken. I support them in their decision making process.

Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.

This is a third time that a Supreme Court has ruled against this administration on Guantanamo - and almost nothing changed.

Well something like 450 of the 800 prisoners in Guantanamo were released as innocent after being imprisoned without judicial review for many years. Question remains how many are guilty. Typical numbers are 14 of 800 were guilty. How will the White House again subvert a Supreme Court ruling?

Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.

Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).

Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.

I loved Bush's comment on this. He said he agreed very strongly with the judges that dissented! lol

Did ya expect something different?:rolleyes:

An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.

Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.

This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.

Supporting facts please for "routine".

Habeas corpus is not an absolute right, and a declared state of war isn’t the only reason for suspending habeas corpus:

U.S. Constitution Article I

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

9-11 could be construed as an invasion and thus habeas corpus could be suspended. But the problem here is how do we know when the invasion is over? The way GWB is fighting his so-called war on terror means that victory parameters don’t exist. Thus we could theoretically be perpetually in danger and habeas corpus could be suspended indefinitely.

Does this means that you support occasional torture?

Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.