Big Win For Constitutional Rights!

[FOTD]

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. A big win for the Constitution. "The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority." Kennedy was, of course, the swing vote. All the more reason a Democrat needs to win the White House. We are one vote away from disaster at SCOTUS.

[Gaspar]

You don't get it.  We just extended their stay by years.  Rather than subjecting them to the quick military tribunals that have already found many of them to be of little threat and returned them to their countries, we are now going to subject them to our courts. [}:)]

Great decision for the Trial Lawyers.  Millions in billing to the taxpayer.  This is quite a victory for the ACLU.

You know this has nothing to do with them being tried in civilian courts.  They will still face trial in military court.  

This simply makes them our guest for a few more years while lawyers file papers for cash.

I bet that the detainees abandon this route quickly.  They will still have a choice to challenge their detention in a military tribunal.

[cannon_fodder]

Every Supreme Court decision, by definition, is a big win for constitutional rights.

I have not read the opinion and I'm guessing you have not read it either.  The difference is, I'll read it (read most of it, skim it... it's 134 pages!) over night and discuss it knowing what was decided tomorrow.    

For anyone interested, here is the actual opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

quote:FOTD wrote
Kennedy was, of course, the swing vote. All the more reason a Democrat needs to win the White House.

Kennedy was appointed by Reagen.  But thanks for the display of ignorance.  

Concurring with the opinion in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. (aka The Gitmo case):

Kennedy (Republican - Reagen appointment)
Souter (R - G. HW Bush)
Stevens (R - Ford)
Ginsburg (D- Bill Clinton)
Breyer (D - Bill Clinton)

So what exactly is your complain on Republican appointments here?

/will respond to the substance when I have a good idea of what was decided.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Every Supreme Court decision, by definition, is a big win for constitutional rights.

I have not read the opinion and I'm guessing you have not read it either.  The difference is, I'll read it (read most of it, skim it... it's 134 pages!) over night and discuss it knowing what was decided tomorrow.    

For anyone interested, here is the actual opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

quote:FOTD wrote
Kennedy was, of course, the swing vote. All the more reason a Democrat needs to win the White House.

Kennedy was appointed by Reagen.  But thanks for the display of ignorance.  

Concurring with the opinion in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. (aka The Gitmo case):

Kennedy (Republican - Reagen appointment)
Souter (R - G. HW Bush)
Stevens (R - Ford)
Ginsburg (D- Bill Clinton)
Breyer (D - Bill Clinton)

So what exactly is your complain on Republican appointments here?

/will respond to the substance when I have a good idea of what was decided.

I recommend you taking a hard look at the Roberts dissent.

[FOTD]

6 years detainees have had their rights removed. I do not defend those being held. I defend their right to a fair trial as our patriotic founders established.

Scalia's decision said more Americans will be killed as a result in a minority opinion. What a tool for the neo cons. He has no business playing military man with his judicial appointment.

[buckeye]

So does the constitution give rights to non-citizens?  I always thought that wasn't the case...

[pmcalk]

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

Did you even bother reading the Boumediene opinion? Do you know that Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and other statutes were at issue before the Court? Before going off on a civil libertarian rant, it might help to know all your targets rather than focusing entirely on the evil George Bush.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911



I recommend you taking a hard look at the Roberts dissent.

Doesn't matter ... his opinion is not the one that's taking precedent here.

[we vs us]

I'm a big fan of Scalia's "Just Pee'd My Pants" dissent/tantrum, where he says that the court's decision will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed, and that, yea, our country shall rue the day that the court meddled with our Executive judicial preferences.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911



I recommend you taking a hard look at the Roberts dissent.

Doesn't matter ... his opinion is not the one that's taking precedent here.

I was pointing out to CF, lawyer to lawyer, what I thought would be an interesting read. And by the way know-it-all, dissenting opinions have value--that's why they are written. Roberts' dissent is a temperature of the chief justice of the Supreme Court's opinion on this issue and may well serve as a forecast on his rulings on other similar issues down the road. Please, think before trying to be clever.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911



I recommend you taking a hard look at the Roberts dissent.

Doesn't matter ... his opinion is not the one that's taking precedent here.

I was pointing out to CF, lawyer to lawyer, what I thought would be an interesting read. And by the way know-it-all, dissenting opinions have value--that's why they are written. Roberts' dissent is a temperature of the chief justice of the Supreme Court's opinion on this issue and may well serve as a forecast on his rulings on other similar issues down the road. Please, think before trying to be clever.

So what's your opinion, then, Guido?  Was this a sound judgment by the 5?  Or do you prefer the dissent of the 4?

[guido911]

I honestly am lost on this one. On the one hand, I cannot see how enemy combatants and/or terrorists can have the same habeas rights as everyday U.S. citizens. Moreover, I see an absolute nightmare with lawyers and the courts getting in the middle of how the U.S. fights its wars. I mean, as Roberts points out, do we haul soldiers off the battlefield to appear at evidentiary hearings? Do we allow the detainees' attorneys to cross-examine our soldiers, which could potentially jeopardize our national security?  

On the other hand, as the majority touched on, the indefiniteness of a detainees' incarceration, particularly if the detainee was in fact wrongly detained, is troubling.  

In any case, I am not as panicked as those on the far right, perhaps because I do not know what the long-term consequences will be. Given the 5-4 split, largely along ideological lines, my sense is this issue is not over. There will be the inevitable appeals by detainees complaining that their habeas hearings were unfair. This is where I see the impact of Roberts' dissent, which could serve as a foundation for one or two of the majority (Kennedy and maybe Souter) to back off their stance. Just my thoughts.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

Did you even bother reading the Boumediene opinion? Do you know that Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and other statutes were at issue before the Court? Before going off on a civil libertarian rant, it might help to know all your targets rather than focusing entirely on the evil George Bush.

No I haven't not read the opinion.  I have a life.  But I know very well what it was about.  I wasn't talking about the opinion specifically but the rights of non citizens, and the Geneva convention.  Have you even bothered to read the Geneva convention?  Before you go off on your right wing tirade, maybe you should learn something about international law.  See, I too can be obnoxious, act superior, all the while not responding to a thing you say.

[Wilbur]

I say, move them all to Iraq, let the Iraqi army guard them, then we don't have to mess with it.