Supreme Court on terrorist detainees: Good news and bad news (1 Viewer)

[Little-Acorn]

The Supreme Court ruled today on the issue of military tribunals and detention for terrorists capture by U.S. forces and detained in places like Gitmo. According to an ABC Radio report I heard on the way to work, some of the ruling supported the administration's plans and some went against parts of them.

The announcer said that the ruling made very clear that detainees could be kept incarcerated for as long as the war against terrorists went on, with no need for charges to be brought or trials to be held. In this way, the detainees are to be treated similarly to prisoners of war in conflicts such as WWII. The ruling also said that, if any of them were to be charged with crimes and tried, it had to be in a civilian trial, not a military tribunal.

Though it doesn't give the US govt everything they wanted, I see it as a net good thing. If the terrorists were to be treated by purely civilian methods, they would have to be either charged with a specific crime, or released. The government ducked that bullet, with the conclusion (as I heard it) that the terrorists could be held indefinitely, since they are indeed enemy combatants, until the war is over.

How to determine when the war is over, is another question not addressed. If the Iraq govt takes over and does a good job of running its country and keeping the peace, but a month later someone blows up another disco in Bali in the name of Allah and kills some Americans, is the war against terrorism over?

The bad news is, any trials must be held in civilian courts. We've already seen what a ridiculous circus such things can degenerate into, with the Zacharias Moussaoui (sp?) trial. Oh well. At least we don't have to release these thugs back into their countries' armed forces to start shooting at us again. In previous wars, prisoners were very seldom put on trial, but were just kept in prison until the end of the war. This ruling seems to affect about 5% of the 500-odd terrorists held in Gitmo, who may have been scheduled for trial eventually.

The ruling was 5-3, with the usual feel-good justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer) being joined by the rudderless one (Kennedy). Thomas, Scalia, and Alito voted against. Roberts had recused himself from the case, since he had been on the panel of the circuit court that had previously ruled on the case.

--------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...l&src=062906_1033_TOPSTORY_tribunals_rejected

Court ruling to have little impact on Guantanamo
Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:24am ET

by Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

The high court upheld on Thursday a Guantanamo defendant's challenge to President George W. Bush's power to create the military tribunals to try suspected al Qaeda conspirators and Taliban supporters after the September 11 attacks.

Harris said he would build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Guantanamo itself, a prison camp that human rights groups, the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.

The tribunals have also come under fire from lawyers, who say they are rigged to ensure conviction and offer none of the basic guarantees and rights granted suspects in the U.S. justice system or to which formal prisoners of war would be entitled.

Ten detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before the tribunals, and prosecutors have said they will charge as many as 25 more if the court rules in favor of the commissions.

"If they rule against the government I don't see how that's going to affect us. From my perspective I think the impact will be negligible," Harris told Reuters.

About 120 other prisoners at the base in have been cleared for release, or transfer to their homelands where Washington expects them to remain in detention.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[Alex]

Actually, I read that the ruling stated nothing about indefinite holdings.

"The court's decision gave ammunition to rights activists worldwide who urged the prison be shut down. But the ruling only addressed the military tribunals, not the broader issues of whether "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely or whether the camp should be closed."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060629/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_court_dc_7




I am going to read the ruling and comment later.

 

[Jerry]

All these news articles.....who gives a **** about articles.....does anyone have a link to the actual ruling? I can't find one.

 

[DivineComedy]

All these news articles.....who gives a **** about articles.....does anyone have a link to the actual ruling? I can't find one.

I just hate it when the articles don’t have a link or enough text for us to see the real idiots:

“31 JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war. See post, at 7–10 (dissenting opinion). But even the Government does not go so far; although the United States had for some time prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, been aggressively pursuing al Qaeda, neither in the charging document nor in submissions before this Court has the Government asserted that the President’s war powers were activated prior to September 11, 2001.” (Opinion of STEVENS, J.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

http://www.debatepolitics.com/340646-post9.html

 

[::Major_Baker::]

The announcer said that the ruling made very clear that detainees could be kept incarcerated for as long as the war against terrorists went on, with no need for charges to be brought or trials to be held.

what a shame.

 

[Jerry]

I just hate it when the articles don’t have a link or enough text for us to see the real idiots:

“31 JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war. See post, at 7–10 (dissenting opinion). But even the Government does not go so far; although the United States had for some time prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, been aggressively pursuing al Qaeda, neither in the charging document nor in submissions before this Court has the Government asserted that the President’s war powers were activated prior to September 11, 2001.” (Opinion of STEVENS, J.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

http://www.debatepolitics.com/340646-post9.html

Hay, thanks for the link! When it comes to law I proffer to read the actual law, ruling, etc. in question and digest it for myself before hearing commentary on it.

 

[DivineComedy]

Hay, thanks for the link! When it comes to law I proffer to read the actual law, ruling, etc. in question and digest it for myself before hearing commentary on it.

You are welcome, I went to the Supreme Court first before they posted it and kept going back, like you I like to read the thing for myself. Sometimes I find I agree with a ruling like this, but for different reasons. And I like finding cute things like in the Stevens opinion, “JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war,” which can be funny!