Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 5 months, 1 week ago in NewsThe 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.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 456
-
0%
berkeley5 months, 1 week ago
scalia actually believes we're going to die because a few people might get their day in court. that leaves congress with no choice but to impeach him.
does this ruling only apply to guantanamo? what about the dozens of other secret prisons or prison ships?
and the fact that this was a 5-4 vote reminds us of the importance of this presidential election. reporters might want to ask mccain who he would nominate.
Reply-
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
I'm not sure how expressing his opinion is impeachable. But I'm AMAZED that he believes that giving a few people the right of judicial review will result in more American deaths. Too bad he couldn't spell out the logical process behind that--it almost reminds me of the way some folks on Propeller argue.
Though I haven't read the opinions yet, it seems to me the ruling must apply to any other prisons holding enemy combatants whose cases are reviewed in the same way as those at Guantanamo.
Reply-
0%
santa05 months, 1 week ago
Scalia's comment is also worrisome because it suggest he is making judicial rulings, not on the merits of the case, but on his own sense of foreign and military policy. That is the epitome of an 'activist judge.' He is attempting to impose his political and policy will on America through rulings that subset the rule of law to his own perception of what the law may result in.
Reply-
0%
BB645 months, 1 week ago
Not likely. I suspect you're reading more into this. The problem, how do you charge them under civil law. It's difficult to read someone their rights when they're shooting at you or blowing up your convoy. Most of these guys were captured in civilian cloths conducting military actions. That's the definition of a spy. I think the lefties, didn't think this through and what the ramifications will mean. They were too busy playing politics.
I'm happy I have a retreat far away from populated areas. I see another 9-11 in our future and it's going to be much worse this time.
Reply-
0%
Locky125 months, 1 week ago
Scalia is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
There is NO PRECEDENCE for giving enemy combatants access to our civil courts! NONE!
This ruling will change our troops-- who job it is to fight a war into police officers who now have to safeguard evidence, be called off the battlefield to testify.
IT'S ABSURD.
We're fighting a war! Obviously, the five moron justices that agreed on this decision don't want us to win it.
Reply-
0%
santa05 months, 1 week ago
you really think that 5 people who have agreed to a life time term to protect a 200 year old document that defines their country don't want america to win? you really think that?
if you do, than your arguements are to be dismissed, because you have zero reasoning skills, and zero ability to see the other sides points.
its simply nonsense, and a little mean, to say that 5 supreme court justices WANT america to lose.
Reply-
0%
Locky125 months, 1 week ago
It maybe mean, but it's true.
What adavantage do we get by turning U.S. troops into civil police officers that are fighting a war where you KILL THE ENEMY! Where they shouldn't be restrained by rules of escalating use of force, rules of evidence, testifying, etc. They have a hard enough job as it is fighting an enemy that just wants to kill them.
Let our troops just do their jobs-- LET THEM KILL THEM FIRST!
Because if they kill us first, we lose. Those five justices don't grasp that. Nor, apparently, do you.
Reply-
0%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
WHAT are you talking about?
The supreme court ruling is about the basic rights of the "accused", in this case the detainees at Gitmo.
This has NOTHING to do with what troops do in combat.
Reply-
0%
Locky125 months, 1 week ago
And just what do you think will happen when the detainees get to our civil courts??
Did the soldier have a right to stop you?
Did the soldier unlawfully question you?
Did the soldier use unnecessary force?
Did the soldier have probable cause to fire upon you/ detain you?
Then you're going to have to pull those soldiers off the battlefield to testify to their actions and present evidence, etc.
Our troops will be pulled from their #1 job which is to KILL. And now with this STUPID supreme court ruling, they may now hesitate on the battlefield which will cost them thier lives!
And when they fear of stopping the wrong guys, they slip through and kill us.
See how that works?
Reply-
0%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
It's funny ... you do NOT even know where MOST of those detainees even CAME from.
MOST were not "pulled from the battlefield". They were 'turned in' by there fellow countrymen who "claimed" they were suspected "terrorists" so that those fellow countrymen could collect the reward offered by the U.S. for turning in "suspected terrorists".
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/gitmo3.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200602u/nj_taylo...
So, your whole premise about any sort of limitations on what troops can do on the battlefield is baseless and inane and NOT even related to this supreme court ruling.
Do YOU now see how that works? I doubt it .... I think this is where I can use the term "stupid" to apply to you ....
Reply -
0%
santa05 months, 1 week ago
thats a legitimate fear. however their use of civil courts does not mean that they are protected under civil law in the same way you and I are. It just means they can't get a fair trial (or aren't getting a fiar trial) via the military.
so a soldier still has thte right to stop, question, force, etc, anyone they see as a threat. because of the applicable standards of war. now, as far as troops testifying, i doubt that. with the exception of specific cases of abuse (which let us hope there very few) a troop acting as a courier for the US Armed Forces will be respresented by those armed forces and his word will be taken as the truth without his presense in the court.
I know you are hung up on precendents here (which legally is unfoudned), but i think one reason this may seem different is because in the past we haven't had prisoners for this length of time without trials or the end of war in sight. its a different war. different precedent.
Reply -
0%
ZippySpincycle5 months, 1 week ago
Locky, by your logic (and I use the term loosely), we should simply never take prisoners. Killing everyone would leave no problems, right? And if there are witnesses, kill them, too. Of course, journalists might hear about it, so they should be shot as well.
Reply-
-
0%
donald515 months, 1 week ago
no conscience and no values seems to be all you understand Locky. See scalia talking about supporting torture last month?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
donald515 months, 1 week ago
ENDO, ...not the way to win a war where we need to win the hearts and minds! 5 years of failed Bush policy up to Petraeus's surge not enough for you? Even Petraeus has said only a political solution will solve Iraq... which isn't happening regardless of the surge efforts!
A million dead Iraqis, mostly innocents, not enough for your heartless soul?
Reply -
0%
miklkit5 months, 1 week ago
That's the bad part( is there a good part?)to this kind of fighting. In Vietnam they would work for us during the day, and try to kill us at night. My Lai was one of the results. This isn't war, it's a police action.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
KicBoxStallion5 months, 1 week ago
or better yet, why not just round up that would-be fuehrer and his nazi- fascist regime (key GOP & crony corp officials) and detain them all at gitmo (facing the possibility of execution) with a little "extraordinary rendition" (that they approved of) until they all confess that it all (each of them too) represents all the crimes perpetrated, US laws and international laws denied and violated going back at least a millennium.
GOP = Gestapo Oligarch Perpetrators
Reply-
-
0%
KicBoxStallion5 months, 1 week ago
think so? i sure as hell hope so! but, err.. you are also WAY OFF TOPIC here (your mind is in SMEAR OBAMA forum), AND, you also sure sound like those damned hate-mongers who said similar fear and smear about Barack's most esteemed forerunner Dr Martin Luther King Jr., remember him?
so, err,.. to bring you BACK to my point: after we do away with that mass-murdering nazi- fascist (your most esteemed Luv Prez) regime and his ILLEGAL gitmo, and then send his cowardly war-waging narrow ass to Iraq, like he's sent 1000's to their deaths, and HANG HIS EVIL BLOOD-GLIUTY hide from the highest pole, THEN we'll have an end to HIS FAILED WAR, and as you say, "Barack will demand that you change your lifestyle.. AND BARAK wont allow you to live your life the way you have!" esp. the last 7 years..
GOP = Groping Obsessive Propagandists
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jordan115 months, 1 week ago
but it's true.>>>
No it isn't. They're doing the job they were given, and protecting the tenets of our Constitution REGARDLESS of their personal opinions. The rights of those in our custody are protected by our Constitution. SC justices don't get to negate that in favor of their politics or their opinions.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Tangent0015 months, 1 week ago
Actually, 'prisoner of war' is not at issue here. Such prisoners are afforded protections through the Geneva Convention. We're talking about the designation of 'unlawful enemy combatant' which can be conferred on ANYONE at ANY TIME, without redress, citizen or no. These people can be detained for the duration of the conflict, which could mean forever in the light of the 'war on terror'.
Reply -
0%
donald515 months, 1 week ago
Endo, Your hero, Dumya, told the UN he respects the rights of man! Was Dumya lying to the UN more than the president of Iran? Are we a nation of law (minus you), or not?
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
sinophil495 months, 1 week ago
Locky - "..they shouldn't be restrained by rules of escalating use of force,.."
That is absolutely a horrific and frightening statement. Our troops should have the freedom TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.
You truly have a primitive and barbaric mind. Thousands of Korean civilians were mass-executed rather than allowed to escape because our military could not tell if there were combatants and were afraid to let enemy infiltrate behind our lines. Another atrocity by American troops was My Lai.
In the course of the Vietnam War, there were some 300 soldiers charged w/ murder of Vietnamese civilians. The longest imprisonment any soldier suffered was 8 months. None were executed.
Can you see any legal jurisdiction in the USA where 300 charged murderers got away basically scot-free? You Cons would be howling about liberal judges and being soft on crime.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
santa05 months, 1 week ago
then you have no ability to reason. with any number of reasons why someone might agree with you, to automatically jump to 'they want american to lose' makes you incapable of empathetic thought or rationale. And i think that that makes you a socio-path.
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Guantanamo opened after 9/11
The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants.
This is the BIGGEST LIE being perpetrated by the Media and the democrat(ic)s and those afflicted with BDS!
Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased...
Reply-
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
The Justice Department was wrong. The Justice Department does not have the final say.
But the Supreme Court does.
By the way, though the naval base at Guantanamo Bay opened before 9/11, the detention facility for enemy combatants opened in 2002.
Reply-
-
-
0%
BB645 months, 1 week ago
Really? I thought it was velum. The Constitution is just a piece of parchment. Contrary to some of our less learned scholars commenting, it is not a living document. Taken as written, it's rather black and white with very little wiggle room, other than clearly defining Executive Privilege, but that isn't the topic here.
The courts passed rights on terrorist. We're to treat enemy combatants with the same rights accorded them but the Constitution never mentioned them. In colonial days, especially after 1812, spies, traitors and combatants were often executed after a military hearing. This was done under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and I think one other but I really can't remember. All had trials quietly conducted and sentences carried out.
Reply-
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
Congress can pass laws, but if the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, there's no more they can do.
The Supreme Court has declared that the detainees have a constitutional right to appeal in a regular civilian court, so it would take a constitutional amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures to change this ruling.
That's not going to happen, and it's not because of a lack of "jewels." It's because denying detinees appeals is WRONG.
Reply -
0%
Ratskii5 months, 1 week ago
When is the last time you read the U.S. Constitution? There are a variety of areas where our founding fathers left wiggle room. 1)Article I, Section 8: To make all laws which will be necessary for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...
2) Article II, The executive power shall be vested in the POTUS. Both of these sections leave huge amounts of area for interpretation. The executive power is not specifically defined and the part of I, 8 that I quoted is known as the elastic clause because Congress has been able to do so much that isn't specifically in the constitution, because of it (e.g. establish committees to carry on a large part of their business).
One needs also take note of amendments 9 and 10 which again, leave a great deal open for interpretation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
Hmmm. A brand-new member with a VERY familiar tone. Interesting.
The Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have final say over matters of law.
The Legislative Branch has other powers. It can check the Judicial Branch by impeachment, and it can get around rulings that nullify laws by writing new laws that are not covered in the Court's opinions.
The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, and has the power of veto over the Legislative Branch.
It's as simple as that.
Check Article III of the Constitution to see where it says the Supreme Court has final say:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Reply-
0%
wpe043135 months, 1 week ago
Well, you're dead wrong. You might try reading Article III again because it mentions nothing about "final say." So why does the Court have the final say? I'll tell you why. Because the Court said so in Marbury v. Madison, an 1801 case that is routinely discussed in law schools and still the subject of controversy today. In Marbury, the Court gave ITSELF the power of judicial review, i.e. to strike down statutes as unconstitutional. That power, however, is not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Over time, Justice Marshall's opinion just became accepted by the legal community. It is still cited today when the Court wants to make sure everyone knows it is the Court's job to "say what the law is" (even as recently as 2006 in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, where the Court held, correctly, that decisions by the ICJ are not binding on U.S. courts).
If you're going to speak as if you know what you're talking about, do your homework first.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8125 months, 1 week ago
Say what you want but the fact is that once the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionally of a law or whether someone got a fair trial, there is no higher power except for congress and the president to pass another law which could again be declared unconstitutional. Here's a web site from Utah that explains it very nicely. Notice the role of the judicial.
http://www.voteutah.org/learning/government/thr...
Reply -
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
Dude, it was 1789. They didn't speak that way.
From Art. III, Section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
What do you think "The judicial Power of the United States" means?
And if you believe Marbury v. Madison means the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power of judicial review (as if that weren't covered in "the judicial Power of the United States), then who are you going to argue it to?
Do you think the president should declare by executive action, or Congress should make a law stripping the Supreme Court of that power? The Supreme Court would strike it down.
How would you go about reversing Marbury v. Madison?
Reply-
0%
wpe043135 months, 1 week ago
Well you clearly missed my point. Article III merely establishes the judiciary. And that's it, period. It does not give the judiciary the "final say" (as you said) to strike down statutes and laws passed by the United States Congress. That did not come about until Marbury v. Madison. And that's my point: the Court declared that it has a power not even granted by the Constitution. There's a reason it's one of the first cases discussed in every first year con law class.
And I never said it would be reversed, or that it should be. But when the judiciary has the "final say" over what are essentially military affairs, it has overstepped its bounds. The thought of nine unelected judges having this much power scares the living hell out of me. And this occurred after the Court, in the Hamdas case, encouraged the President and Congress to pass a detainee law, which it now strikes down before it has even been implemented. Obviously, the Court was joking.
Reply-
0%
Beau78905 months, 1 week ago
Section 2 clarifies "the judicial Power of the United States," a bit:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party...."
The thought of one Commander-in-Chief having the power you're afraid to give 9 unelected judges (selected and confirmed by elected officials) scares the living hell out of me.
Do you think it's possible that the Court in Hamdas may have been encouraging the president and Congress to pass a *constitutionally valid* detainee law?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Candida5 months, 1 week ago
Beau7890: "Hmmm. A brand-new member with a VERY familiar tone."
I think his last name was "avoth," a.k.a. J. Galt, but I may be mistaken.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jordan115 months, 1 week ago
The final say in this matter does NOT belong to the Justice Dept. It belongs to the Supreme Court....PERIOD. If you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment that must be passed by 2/3 of Congress, and ratified by 3/4 of the States. That's how it works in this country. OR...you could push for Congress to impeach the five justices. In either case, gooood luck.
Reply-
-
-
0%
lfergie8125 months, 1 week ago
How is it horrible to give someone their day in court. Regardless of what you and the other right wing Bush appeasers think, this is not a declared war in Iraq since only congress can declare war which they didn't do. Since it isn't a declared war the U.S. has to treat the prisoners as anyone else that has committed a crime by breaking the law whether you and Bush like it or not. Just as McVey and Nichols were tried for the Oklahoma bombing. Finally the Supreme Court made a decision that is the right one.
Reply-
0%
Teagen5 months, 1 week ago
You really have no idea the types of people being held in Gitmo right now. You are correct this isn't a declared war, it's a series of police actions against a religious sect whose goal is to convert and kill everyone.
As to treating prisoners as POW's or criminals, I think this is going to be very difficult for the troops in combat conditions. In the end, I suspect if this stands and prisoners are released, you will see more strikes with the Predator and less living prisoners being brought in, reducing our intel.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
sinophil495 months, 1 week ago
cape - "..opened the detention facility at Guantanamo..to hold enemy combatants."
That is the whole crux of the issue.
A detainee being labelled by Bush or our troops as a terrorist does not automatically mean he IS a terrorist.
We do not know if they WERE combatants or were simply swept up by our troops, misidentified by our troops, or turned in by other civilians just to get the cash reward our military was offering.
A real terrorist must be identified and properly punished or execcuted. An inocent person should be set free. Just detaining them in Gitmo w/o a trial does neither.
Reply
-
-
0%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
How would this ruling "change our troops"?? WHAT are you talking about?
The ruling is to allow anyone that is 'detained', in prison, whatever, by the U.S. to have some BASIC rights to KNOW what they are charged with and to defend themselves via a trial by jury. That has NOTHING to do with what our troops are doing!
If there is so much "evidence" of the guilt of EVERY detainee in Gitmo, then why has it taken SIX years for the government to even start taking any of them to 'trial'?
Justice should be fairly and thoroughly served, REGARDLESS of who the accused is. If we, as a nation, cannot uphold our OWN principles, we are no longer a democracy.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Under the civil courts one must be read their Miranda rights. SO now when detaining a enemy combatant in the field no matter the situation this will be required. Can you imagine?
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Teagen5 months, 1 week ago
Magna Carta? That had nothing to do with terrorists. In fact it didn't remove torture from the list of dos and don'ts when it came to the guilty.
Terrorist should not be covered as POW's. If congress really wanted to do something this year, besides the non-binding resolutions, tax increases and cutting the military, how about drawing up laws concerning terrorists. Carter gave non-uniformed combatants, at that time the PLO more protection than regular military troops have. Dump the UN bylaws and create something we all can live with.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8125 months, 1 week ago
They can read them their Miranda rights just before they begin the torture so that it would be legal (according to Bush).
Reply -
0%
LightofReason5 months, 1 week ago
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court in Miranda which was the lead case for two or three similar appeals. Miranda only applies when one is in police custody, police do not need to read someone his rights until they arrest them. Statements made prior to arrest are admissible at all times.
Reply
-
-
0%
Daylight5 months, 1 week ago
bubba2
Justice should be fairly and thoroughly served, REGARDLESS of who the accused is. If we, as a nation, cannot uphold our OWN principles, we are no longer a democracy.
Whether you acccept it or not, America is not a Democracy as everybody believes it, it is a Pol Pot regime that invades, occupies and kills innocent people and argues that it is killing only the guilty and capturing and detaining only the guilty and also torturing only the guilty.
Reply-
0%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
Under the Bush administration, that is unfortunately true. How silly of me to forget ....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect5 months, 1 week ago
Locky...
God...what a rant...and guess what, Locky...there's a precedence now, isn't there?
So...let me get this straight...when we're in a war, we should abandon our civility and system of justice, just to go after people we think may be involved in overturning our government and way of life. Is that it?
Aren't people held for years without being charged entitled to the right of counsel?
If not, what exactly does this country stand for?
Reply-
0%
Locky125 months, 1 week ago
So...let me get this straight...when we're in a war, we should abandon our civility and system of justice, just to go after people we think may be involved in overturning our government and way of life. Is that it?
That's the way we fight wars. It's the way its' always been. War isn't pretty and nobody ever said it is.
Aren't people held for years without being charged entitled to the right of counsel?
Ask your buddy FDR. Don't dems bill him as one of the greats? He did the same thing during World War II.
what exactly does this country stand for?
I'm glad you asked, since you obviously don't know.
America First.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
