BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs Gitmo Detainees; 5-4 Decision Against Bush Administration- UPDATED with VIDEO
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jun 11, 2008 10:30am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t David)
The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday (.pdf), 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.
"We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority in the 70-page opinion.
He said that Congress had failed to create an adequate alternative for the prisoners held at the U.S. military base in Cuba to contest their detention.
Not surprisingly, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were the dissenting opinions. In Scalia's dissent, he wrote:
"...it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
Yeah, it's such a hassle to prove you have the right to indefinitely detain someone. People for the American Way:
It’s chilling that the case was decided on a single vote, 5-4. One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have gone the other way. That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realize that in this election year, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. John McCain has already promised the GOP that he would nominate Justices to the Court exactly like those Bush has brought to the bench. This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free.
Login or Register to post comments.
thier can be no doubt now
Whoa....I NEVER thought I'd see this!
"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
That statement applies to so many rulings from the stacked wingnut court, how appropriate to hear it from the fascist pig Scalia.
Don't forget this is the same USSC that decided in 2000 the voters don't matter and Bush waz da man!. The Bush Cabal is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Devious stuff.
Surprise, surprise....The four decenting votes were from Roberts, Alito,Thomas
and Scalia
Reich-wing implosion in 4...3....2.....1....
maybe this is the beginning...maybe...
Scalia is such a seething prick. Every time you read a dissenting opinion from him the only thing you can really gather from it is not that he's upset with the legality or equity of the decision.... but that he's pissed off that he doesn't have the ability to solely effect law in this country. In other words, that democracy still exists, and it still exists to disrupt fascists like him and the people who put him into power from completely sweeping away dissent.
lyleleander @ 8:
Perfect bumper sticker slogan. Scalia is clearly the most r partisan judge on the Court, yet reich-wingers are so blinded by their own hate and stupidity to see this simple fact.
That's great. Now, if we can only get the right of habeus corpus back to US citizens that this ReichWing court took away....
i cannot fully describe how much i hate the being that in scalia. you lost, get over it.
The only thing this country will live to regret are the 4 conservative justices on the Court.
Jesus. Don't these dissenting judges understand what the constitution is FOR? Its there to keep people's civil rights (and human rights) inviolate. IE: You cant take them away because youre afraid of a bunch of [[people with whom you disagree.] Edited. Lay off the racist invective here-Sitemonitor].
Habeus Corpus has formed the foundation of human rights for a thousand years! You dont just take it away because Bush says some group of people are scary! You need to have more than just "Those guys look like terrorists" to destroy someones life by detaining them FOREVER.
And now we emerge
Torch in hand we surge
Light to push the darkness back
For the courage that we have lacked
Now from our hearts it shall swell
The greedious gluttony in it's death knell
For we are many and they are one
And one by one, we will be done
I'm somewhere between happy as hell with this decision and frightened that if McCain picks the next Supreme Court judge, we are so fu*ked for such a long time.
Why didn't Scalia refer to his butt-buddy, Jack Bauer, on this one to show how treating prisoners inhumanely produces results?
Americans are so gullible.
[Deleted. Knock it off. It's trolling with flamebait. Quit being a sore winner-Sitemonitor]
"This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free."
Agreed.
The only problem is that I don't trust the electoral system we currently have in place. Specifically the privately owned, computerized voting machines.
If we want a free and fair election in November every one of us needs to get involved locally to work directly at the precinct levels where people will be voting.
We MUST be actively involved in all our neighborhoods on Election Day to observe the elections. Lots of cameras watching the counting. All of us INSIDE the process, not outside complaining.
Right, it's a pity the Decider can't lock up anyone he chooses for no reason at all.
I wonder if justin can write poetry like I can?
McCain cant win! If he does, womens rights will be destoyed! I hope American women realize how perilous our future is if one more right-wing justice is ushered in. I might have to move my daughters out of the states.
JW @ 13:
Of course they understand what the Constitution is for. That's why they're working so hard to subvert it. You can't very well establish a Fourth Reich with that pesky 200 year old piece of paper in the way, can ya?
Dr. (terrorist fit jab) Matt @ 18:
stfu
L.A. Confidential @ 17:
Let's check the evidence for that statement:
They "elected" the shrub twice, they read the bible and believe in jeebus and mouth "support the troops" ad nauseum.
You are correct!
I fully concur with this decision, yet have difficulty understanding why the vote (5-4) could have been so close. The basic rights which have been witheld from the prisoners at Gitmo are fundamental to our country and must be restored. It does not take a great visionary to project that the same unjust treatment we have witnessed in our base in Cuba could someday blead into the legal system as it affects each and every U.S. citizen. Heaven forbid that the Supreme Court will ever become overbalanced with the type of justices the Bush administration has burdened us with, and with which John McCain has promised to recommend.
As always, the SCotUS makes decisions long after they would actually be useful. But hey, they need to keep up their reputation as the most worthless part of the federal government.
I'm shocked and delighted. Also hopeful. I would have bet that the majority would vote against the Constitution.
I hope this invalidates the Military Commissions Act in whole.
Dr. (terrorist fit jab) Matt @ 9:
The hard core "conservatives" appear to have no self awareness or reasoning abilities whatsoever. They act like morally blind people.
forget impeaching bush....impeach scalia
the man is certifiable
liftr36 @ 26:
The reason is because of Jack Bauer being cited as precedent by Alito, and the conservative's pants-pissing fear of OMG TEH TERRRRRRRRRRERRRRRRISTS!!!
Oddly enough, they aren't all that big on prosecuting people who blow up women's health clinics.
The only thing the Nation regrets is that a malignant sociopath like Scalia and similar maladjusted personalites like Roberts, Alito and Thomas were ever appointed to the court.
If they arent going to impeach Bush, then at least impeach several of the members of SCOTUS.
The fascist members of SCOTUS seem to think that the military can 'detain' someone that isnt a prisoner of war - but rather something they call (and invented) - a 'detainee'.
I would argue that by definition, anyone 'detained' by the military is a prisoner of war - and if not, then they ought not be detained.
This is clearly nothing less than an attempt to wedge open fractures in the US legal system for unintended (and manufactured) governmental benefit.
Oh PS, to the idiots who turn every thread into a hillary/obama bicker, please just stfu or find a different blog. And to all the cynics who've lost all hope, grow a par and do something about it.
Underground Pirate @ 29:
The hard core "conservatives" appear to have no self awareness or reasoning abilities whatsoever. They act like morally blind people.
Oh trust me, they aren't acting.
A lot of detainees at the GITMO concentration camp were not scooped up on the battlefield, but "Sold" to us by Afghan warlords. It's a total crock of shit. What happened to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the domestic U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist? War on Terror, my ass. regards
Doggiebobo @ 5:
Does Uncle Clarence EVER oppose overseer Scalia?
"...The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today..."
That is the same thing I said when the Supreme Court stopped the 2000 vote recount in Florida.
lyleleander @ 8:
Oh, and Mr. Justice Scalia regarding your advice:"2000 election --Get over it."
Never. Not a chance. Nada.
about time
tyree @ 24:
both of yuz stfu
anyone that is a frequent poster knows that we are here to support the party not keep dividing it.
no matter what side your we are on the SAME side
think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jake S. @ 14:
I love this Jake S. Nicely done.
We are just one vote away from Fascism...just one
Once more into the breach, dear friends
Once more into the breach.
Repeat after me : NO MORE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER
MDC @ 37:
And You were absolutly correct.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Well, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas: What would Jack Bauer do in this situation? [snark]
tyree @ 24:
easy people....infighting is hugely counterproductive.
we have more important things to focus on.
Uncle Joe Hussein Mccarthy @ 30:
Scalia said that "the federal courts are incompetent" to make the detainee rulings!
Imagine that. Scalia just called the federal courts incompetent!
The pot calling the kettle black?
“The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
We already regret what the court has done here today -- four Supreme Court justices voting against the Constitution -- but the big news is, hey, the righties say our Nation will live! Yay!
Guardian UK: Ghost ships
This is great news. If some of these people are truly terrorists and as bad as Cheney would have us believe then these people can rot but I sure as hell would never take Cheney's word for it. Make the government prove it. Not such a novel idea but one that this administration seems to think does not need to happen. They/we will even have to prove that Cheney and Bush should be locked up for the rest of their lives but I don't see any problem there. Do you? I think it would be a "slam dunk".
Nicole, you missed the Williams spin. He said (in effect) this ruling was a 'get out of jail free' card when he said - For the big five not quite so clear (Sheik Mohammed etc) as their cases for habeous corpus are not as strong. He seems to have missed the core meaning here - process and rule of law NOT utility. (Scalia surely regrets just how untidy democracy can be)
This may also have bearing on the military commissions act - which he appears to also have missed.
He needs to be called on this.
Goodbye MCA... The Military Commissions Act is dead: it's central clause, clause 7, is explicitely struck down. Without 7, there's very little of MCA which can stand in the face of previous contrary opinions, esp. Hamdan.
This is a great day!
Scalia's comments show what a shabby mind he has. He says that the courts aren't competent to prove who is and who isn't an illegal enemy combatant and therefore cannot determine who is and isn't covered by Constitutional protections. Typical for this idiot, he misses the point. First, it isn't the courts jobs to determine ones status, it's the courts' jobs to uphold and defend the Constitution. Curious that so many of our Supreme court judges can't figure that out. Second, it is utterly irrelevent what somebody's status is in the first place; indeed, status itself (an insane concept) is irrelevent: Constitutional protections apply to all, they don't have to be earned, they can't be forfieted. If somebody is in the the US, it's territories or falls under the authority of the US flag, they're covered. With few shameful exceptions, that has always been the norm, as settled law.
Scalia is a blood-thirsty, power-hungry sociopath who would twist the laws of the land in order to see to the sating of his lust to cause harm. I wish him nothing but ill and an early and very short retirement.
I guess even some conservative Judges can be reasoned with.
Scalia has lost his mind! His public stance has been that the courts should never adjugate policy:
"I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says."
Then states that because of his predicted outcome, the reinstatement of Habeus Corpus is wrong?!
The history of the present era will be fascinating, if Americans of the future are able to read...
Impeachment isn't just for the president, vice-president, secretary of state, etc. SCOTUS justices may also be impeached.
it's chilling that this was decided by one vote...
Chilling yes, surprising no. Four blocks of granite for GOP agenda, will not vote based on law or logic. They have an mission and their votes will be 100 percent predictable. No pretense, no excuse. So with that as a perspective the vote is unanimous. At least among the real jurists. And for future reference remember subtract four and you see the true vote.
Abbybwood @ 19:
Again you remind me of why I'm so happy to live in Oregon. Our vote-by-mail system is incredibly awesome.
The Supreme Court is the most important issue of this election for me. As I feel it should be for any woman.
For the angry Clinton supporters who are threatening to support John McCain in November, this is why you "must" vote for Obama. We have 4 justices on the court who have no obligation to the Constitution nor Democratic government. One more justice like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and the always missing in action Thomas, we can kiss our civil liberties good bye, and if you think John McCain is not like Bush, just listen to the 30 or so Republicans in Congress who refuse to support McCain. And it is not because he is not conservative enough, they don't think he has the tempermant to be President. Now for the angry women out there, Roe V Wade, equal pay, civil rights, and so on are on the ballot. So even if you don't like Obama, the question is do you like yourself and are you going to waste all the hard work that has gone into gaining the rights you have gained over the years. For you to even consider setting the entire country back 50 years because you are angry over the Democratic primary is simply childish, immature, and selfish.
Gee, I wonder who the dissenters were. Wonder who penned the dissenting opinion.
Madprogressive @ 59:
*standing ovation*
Very well said!!!
Ricky Bones @ 60:
Never mind, I see now who it was and who wrote it. No surprise!
“…it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
To summarize: "Commanders must prove in court that evidence supports the confinement of enemy prisoners."
In other, older words: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we...deny or delay, right or justice." The Magna Carta, 1215
Roberts Alito Thomas Scalia
Um, I think everyone here should get a bit of a grip. Civil rights are not making a comeback. Shortly you will be reading of some sort of novel maneuver, some Machiavellian gambit to sidestep this ruling. Bush is above the law. His view of the Executive is that during a time of armed hostilities with another nation the Legislative and Judicial branches are subservient to him. He will not obey this ruling nor acquiesce to the court. Bet on it.
Next pres: expand the court with some raging civil liberties nuts. Take up it to 11, or 13 justices. Fuck the cons and their activist judging style.
I want judges that interpret the law, not ones that change it when they think 'special conditions' warrant. There is no such thing in law. That's why we make them.
Scalia and Thomas and the other two can go to hell.
Rowdy! @ 64:
BUMPER STICKER.
Anybody here have a print shop? I'd buy one of there fer sher!
Not surprisingly, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were the dissenting opinions. In Scalia’s dissent, he wrote:
“… The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
The nation is regreting that the Bush/Cheney Junta and The Republican Crime Syndicate were able to put your sorry darksided demonic ass's on the Supreme Court!
WOOT! A win for the good guys. Suck ass Scalia.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 67:
Excellent! I will buy one.
Bush's buddies in the Supreme Court are always with him. We need to change lifetime appointments to change the bias. No branch of the government should contain a lifetime bias. Make them elected officials.
The nation already regrets the four morons of the apocalypse having been named to the bench.
Barry @ 71:
Don't blame Bush. The Democratic pussies in Congress confirmed all these bastards.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS."
--Mahatma Gandhi
But it doesn't. The dissenting justices do just what the administration has repeatedly done; they refuse to define what these prisoners are under our laws. They're not civilians, but since there is no declaration of war, we'll have to take the administration's word for it. So, they're POWs, right? Well, no, because there is no declaration of war, and these prisoners don't wear uniforms. So, they have no protections as civilians or as POWs; they're, um, well, let's see, "enemy combatants!"
The administration invented a new class of human, which one would think requires a very high standard of proof. Their argument seems to be that since it's a new thing, the government doesn't have to prove anything!
The dissenting justices seem to want me to believe that our military will stop protecting the nation, because on the battlefield they'll be worried about being sued; I'm not sure what else they're trying to say. We live in a nation that presumes that the police need evidence to arrest someone, and that the military is controlled by the Executive Branch, which is the highest law enforcement organization in the nation. So, yeah, you have to prove your assertions. If you don't like it, get a job a Blackwater.
RichStraightWhiteAmericanMale @ 63:
this ruling means nothing to the mighty king bush and his handy dandy signing statement pen !
serge @ 72:
You would be amazed that half regret the five.
And on a related note, this should be a warning to all those women out there whining because Billary didn't win.
Fine, continue to pout and cast your protest vote for McSame.
Just don't come crying to me when Roe v.Wade is overturned and you lose the ability to control what happens to your own body.
“…it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
As a dissenting opinion, this is not an applicable argument for the law being examined.
if that's not the definition of "activist", then....
Scalia: “… The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.””
I think he really means HE (Scalia) will make the nation live to regret this.
Barry @ 71:
Absolutely. Maybe just give them a reasonable term like 8 years or something.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ in Chiang Mai @ 42:
How about the Repubs disband like the Nazi's did. No more republicans ever!
My dad was a repub, and he couldn't wait for me to go to Vietnam to "help win" that war.
I loved him, but his republicanism was the worst part of him.
Scalia: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
Actually, Judge, in less than eight years we should, as you advised, “Get over it. It’s so old by now.”
Aachoo @ 74:
Thanks for this.
I've recently read that less than 10% of the 'detainees' being held by the US 'government' are at Gitmo. Will this decision effect the others?
Why all the excitement? Everybody knows that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the fourth branch of government. No one will even get a hearing. Dick Cheney can keep torturing Pakistani cabdrivers to his heart's content.
Seriously - does anyone think that the administration will do anything different? Feh.
None of this could have happened without the blessing of the U.S. Congress (as well as the 4th estate). None of this could have happened without the blessing of the American People, which makes me ashamed.
The courts are only 8 years behind public opinion
Aachoo @ 74:
true, the tyrants and murderers always fall, but as for the way of love....
these entities still exist via their roles, not their organisms. The actors change, but the script remains the same because of our inherited social binds and constructs. As long as we can blame individuals (tyrants and murderers) for society's ills, we never need discover the real reasons for our suffering.
There is more than ample scientific evidence that evil (as best as anyone is willing to define it for themselves during research) is relative, that many environments trump acquired "good" character through exposure, and that any of us in the right place and the right time, can be Hitler or Ghandi.
The way of truth has promise, the way of love, though beautiful for the self, has social and environmental pitfalls.
What "feels" right, would be facility enough for harmony, and our instincts are well-evolved, if not for the massive layers of social constructs and indoctrinations through our history that lay our "love" on a bed of conflicts and falsehoods.
I long for the day when the way of "love" is the rule that works for us.
For now, we are dealing with a force that has the power, anger and communication skills of a rabid grizzly bear, and for now, the way of "love" as delivered pure from the self's heart, is not likely to resonate the way we wish.