Adios, Guantanamo?

['BusNative]

I personally disagree with the tone of the WSJ article as well as Scalia's dissent, but this is a HUGE ruling. We might as well discuss this too.


Best of the Web Today - WSJ.com

Adios, Guantanamo

"The Nation will live to regret what the Court had done today," Justice Antonin Scalia writes at the end of his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush, the case in which a bare majority of the Supreme Court, for the first time ever, extended rights under the U.S. constitution to enemy combatants who have never set foot on U.S. soil.

It's worth noting that the nation has lived to regret things the court has done in earlier wars. In Schenck v. U.S. (1919), the court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party leader for distributing an anticonscription flier during World War I--material that would unquestionably be protected by the First Amendment under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), the court held that the government had the authority to ban Japanese-Americans from certain areas of California, simply on the ground that their ethnic heritage rendered their loyalty suspect. Korematsu has never been overturned, but there is no doubt that it would be in the vanishingly unlikely event that the question ever came up again.

This war was different. Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, we began hearing dire warnings about threats to civil liberties. Five members of the high court seem to have internalized these warnings. As Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in his majority opinion today, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." Kennedy and his colleagues seemed determined to err on the side of an expansive interpretation of constitutional rights...

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have said they want to close down Guantanamo, and this ruling makes that outcome more likely. There is little advantage to the U.S. in sending enemy combatants to a facility where they will immediately be able to lawyer up, and indeed, Guantanamo has admitted few new detainees in the past several years. A notable exception occurred in 2006, when President Bush transferred Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and a dozen or so other "high value" detainees there...

Here's the NYTimes on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/wa...on&oref=slogin

June 13, 2008
Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON - Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guant?namo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come...

And the link to the full decision:
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

[BuckeyeMike80]

I wonder if this will leave any future POW camps open for this type of interpretation?

If they want an appeal that's fine, but what if the civilian courts give them a possible death penalty? Now wouldn't THAT be awesome?

(I know I know, it won't happen that would be too good to be true for the scum at GITMO).....

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

I wonder if this will leave any future POW camps open for this type of interpretation?

If they want an appeal that's fine, but what if the civilian courts give them a possible death penalty? Now wouldn't THAT be awesome?

(I know I know, it won't happen that would be too good to be true for the scum at GITMO).....

It would at least be fair, I guess. It'd would be hard for anyone to angry about a proper appeal, conviction and sentence.

[spurrier]

ruling is horrendous. some person who has never set foot on our soil can kill our people, go to court and get protection under our constitution and then get off on a technicality like not understanding his miranda rights because he speaks no english. he then can say thank you to americas courts and kill again

[mercer_buckeye]

Originally Posted by spurrier

ruling is horrendous. some person who has never set foot on our soil can kill our people, go to court and get protection under our constitution and then get off on a technicality like not understanding his miranda rights because he speaks no english. he then can say thank you to americas courts and kill again

Typical so what if we break the rules in the name of the rules. You can't [censored] all over the very rights your trying to protect.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by mercer_buckeye

Typical so what if we break the rules in the name of the rules. You can't [censored] all over the very rights your trying to protect.

Can you say that in a different way, so I can understand what you're getting at?

[OH10]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

Can you say that in a different way, so I can understand what you're getting at?

Essentially, we are told that we are fighting for freedom, which in the United States, includes due process. But our executive branch apparently feels as though the whole "due process" thing is getting old and doesn't really work.