bigpoppanils Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 Terror suspects get court accessThe US Supreme Court has ruled that terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba can use the US legal system to challenge their detention. The six-to-three ruling is seen as a major blow to the Bush administration and could herald hundreds of appeals in US courts on behalf of the inmates. Lower US courts had previously ruled that Guantanamo prisoners were beyond US legal jurisdiction. The ruling did not pass judgement on the guilt or innocence of any detainee. Of the 600-odd terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay most were rounded up in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the US-led operation against al-Qaeda and the Taleban. No blank cheque The Supreme Court did not address the issues of human rights surrounding the men's capture and detention without trial. Human rights groups have challenged the legal basis for their continued incarceration. The detainees comprise nationals from more than 40 countries. Many were captured in 2001, during the early months of the US operation in Afghanistan. About 150 have been transferred from Guantanamo - many of them to be detained by their own governments. Two Britons who were freed from Guantanamo Bay in March and released without charge in the UK, Shasiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, urged the US government to inform all detainees of their right to take their case to US courts and to provide them with lawyers "to make that access a reality". In a separate but related ruling, the Supreme Court decided that US citizens designated as "enemy combatants" could be detained without trial - but that those held also had the right to challenge their detention in US courts. In that case - which centres on US-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that a state of war was "not a blank cheque for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens". US President George W Bush has announced controversial plans to try the Guantanamo detainees in military tribunals, rather than civilian courts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3847539.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 BURN!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 technically the court left the whole issue which court should be accessible to the plantiffs...clearly the court says that the suspects have a right to challange their detention, but the court did not make clear which court has judirsction, i.e. is it the 9th circuit court or 7th etc or even for that matter military courts. The executive had been claiming that the detainees would be tried by military tribunal, so as most pundits were spinning that this ruling was a blow to the excutive, it is'nt the case, clearly they havent read the majority opinion clearly.Detainees in guantanamo could be tried in military court, as prisoner of war or military combatants, again this is wht the adminstration had been saying from the start and I dont see how the SC changed or reversed that excutive order...So all those law abiding citizen, dont rejoice yet, the court has still not made any significant change, In my opionion the court should have ruled on the designation of the detainees either as POW or enemy combatants...unfortunately the court did not address this criticial question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted June 29 Author Report Share Posted June 29 technically the court left the whole issue which court should be accessible to the plantiffs...clearly the court says that the suspects have a right to challange their detention, but the court did not make clear which court has judirsction, i.e. is it the 9th circuit court or 7th etc or even for that matter military courts. The executive had been claiming that the detainees would be tried by military tribunal, so as most pundits were spinning that this ruling was a blow to the excutive, it is'nt the case, clearly they havent read the majority opinion clearly.Detainees in guantanamo could be tried in military court, as prisoner of war or military combatants, again this is wht the adminstration had been saying from the start and I dont see how the SC changed or reversed that excutive order...So all those law abiding citizen, dont rejoice yet, the court has still not made any significant change, In my opionion the court should have ruled on the designation of the detainees either as POW or enemy combatants...unfortunately the court did not address this criticial question.the general message that came from the ruling, in my view anyway, is that it is "ok" for the President to declare US citizens as "enemy combatants", but it is not ok to hold them indefinitely. Even Scalia expressed reservations about that. Both he and Stevens agreed that Hamdi should be charged (as a criminal or traitor) or released.As far as what the ruling does for non-US citizens, all it does is allow them to file claims under the Aliens Tort Claims Act (at least according to the opinion of Justice Stevens). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Scalia and steven both wrote the dissenting view, the majority opinion does'nt support what scalia or stevens were arguing, i.e. that hamdi be charged or in scalia's view either charged for treason or have the congress suspend hebus corpus.so in the majortiy opinion, the govt can keep hamdi incarcerated without charge, but still have access to a lawyer with limited or special instructions from the AG or Defense Secretary (litereally this is the implication of the ruling) so you hold someone without charge, with limited access to a lawyer, who operates unders special instruction, and then just maybe if hamdi is really really lucky prove the govts case wrong, but how can he prove the govt's case is wrong if he is not charged with a crime?? and he is gitmo for the past 3 yrs, he has no access to witnesses, no access to alibis etc...this ruling if you read it carefully, pushed the burden of proof on hamdi as opposed to the prosecution, which has the burden of proof....the general message that came from the ruling, in my view anyway, is that it is "ok" for the President to declare US citizens as "enemy combatants", but it is not ok to hold them indefinitely. Even Scalia expressed reservations about that. Both he and Stevens agreed that Hamdi should be charged (as a criminal or traitor) or released.As far as what the ruling does for non-US citizens, all it does is allow them to file claims under the Aliens Tort Claims Act (at least according to the opinion of Justice Stevens). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Scalia and steven both wrote the dissenting view, the majority opinion does'nt support what scalia or stevens were arguing, i.e. that hamdi be charged or in scalia's view either charged for treason or have the congress suspend hebus corpus.so in the majortiy opinion, the govt can keep hamdi incarcerated without charge, but still have access to a lawyer with limited or special instructions from the AG or Defense Secretary (litereally this is the implication of the ruling) so you hold someone without charge, with limited access to a lawyer, who operates unders special instruction, and then just maybe if hamdi is really really lucky prove the govts case wrong, but how can he prove the govt's case is wrong if he is not charged with a crime?? and he is gitmo for the past 3 yrs, he has no access to witnesses, no access to alibis etc...this ruling if you read it carefully, pushed the burden of proof on hamdi as opposed to the prosecution, which has the burden of proof....the general message that came from the ruling, in my view anyway, is that it is "ok" for the President to declare US citizens as "enemy combatants", but it is not ok to hold them indefinitely. Even Scalia expressed reservations about that. Both he and Stevens agreed that Hamdi should be charged (as a criminal or traitor) or released.As far as what the ruling does for non-US citizens, all it does is allow them to file claims under the Aliens Tort Claims Act (at least according to the opinion of Justice Stevens). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted June 29 Author Report Share Posted June 29 this ruling if you read it carefully, pushed the burden of proof on hamdi as opposed to the prosecution, which has the burden of proof....ithis was not mentioned at all in the analysis that the Wall Street Journal published this morning. The WSJ, the AP, and other organizations have seen this as a defeat for Bush...your analysis presents it as a defeat for Hamdi. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 WSJ and other media outlets dont read things carefully anyway....you should read the opinions, here is a linkhttp://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040628rasul.pdfgoto wid.ap.org for other opinions as well, infact i would say read the yale or harvard law journal on its next publishing.....ithis was not mentioned at all in the analysis that the Wall Street Journal published this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 O found a great article ...http://www.counterpunch.orgithis was not mentioned at all in the analysis that the Wall Street Journal published this morning. The WSJ, the AP, and other organizations have seen this as a defeat for Bush...your analysis presents it as a defeat for Hamdi. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.