"Supreme court ruling on right to trial puts Guantánamo future in doubt"

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

A severe blow to the "War against Terror" procedural system.

If and how this will impact the current presidential campaign should prove interesting.

The future of the infamous Guantánamo detention centre was thrown into doubt today after the US supreme court delivered the most serious blow yet to President George Bush's policy of holding prisoners indefinitely without trial.

The justices, in a historic ruling, said the 270 prisoners, held for more than six years for alleged links with al-Qaida and the Taliban, have a constitutional right to take their cases to civilian courts on the US mainland.

Lawyers for the prisoners today hailed the ruling as a vindication of their battle to have Guantánamo, in Cuba, closed.

Travelling in Rome, Bush said he did not agree with the ruling. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," he said.
The nine-member supreme court normally has a rightwing bent but Justice Anthony Kennedy, a maverick conservative who holds the balance of power, joined his more liberal colleagues to provide a 5-4 majority.

"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Kennedy said.

At present the prisoners are classed as enemy combatants and face trial in military commissions set up by the Bush administration.

Their lawyers are expected to lodge habeas corpus petitions with federal courts as a matter of urgency, demanding their release.

Scores of cases related to the prisoners have been on hold in the federal courts pending the ruling. Federal judges, thrown into consternation by the ruling, met today to decide how to proceed.

It is the third time that the supreme court has ruled against Bush on Guantánamo. On the previous two occasions, the administration and the Republican-controlled Congress changed the law to strip the detainees of their right to habeas corpus.

Bush cannot go to Congress this time because it is now controlled by the Democrats, who favour closing the camp.

The definitive nature of the ruling will make it harder for the Bush administration to manoeuvre round.

One option, though it would create an outcry, would be to close the camp and transfer the prisoners to another country, such as Afghanistan.

In the split decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with the dissenters. He described the existing set-up at Guantánamo as "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants".

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasised the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," he said.

Reflecting the chaos created by the ruling, a lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan. A military judge had already delayed the military trial's start at Guantánamo to await the supreme court ruling.

Navy Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantánamo for Omar Khadr, a Canadian charged with killing a US special forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Vince Warren, executive director of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents more detainees than any other group of lawyers, said he hoped the Bush administration would not react by transferring the detainees to "a black hole" in another country, such as Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the London-based Reprieve, which represents 35 prisoners, said the ruling was "catastrophic" for Bush's "secret prisons policy". He added: "But the prisoners still have a long way to go."

Amnesty International wrote to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, today urging him to raise with Bush on his visit to London next week the issue of three prisoners with British links.

The three prisoners are: Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian formerly resident in London; Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national formerly resident in London; and Ahmed Belbacha, an Algerian who lived in Bournemouth.

Both the presidential candidates, the Democrat Barack Obama and the Republican John McCain, have said they would close Guantánamo on taking over the White House.

McCain reiterated that pledge today: "I was in favour of closing Guantánamo Bay and I am still in favour of that," he said.

Source:
- Supreme court ruling on right to trial puts Guantánamo future in doubt | World news | guardian.co.uk

Reminder, keep it civil and constructive thanks

[SiN|ScarFace]

It's good to see rulings like this but they will just be moved to "black holes" in other countries. The gitmo camps are like zoos, the real "prisons" are scattered around world.

[SethLive!]

"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
-W. Churchill

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Ahhh but these boys aren't Prisoners Of War are they ?

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; They have no central command
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; they do not
(c) That of carrying arms openly; they do not
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. They DO NOT


Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War


But some of you think they should have trial with US rights ?

Since probably none of them were Mirandized, that would mean some guy we caught with a gun, aiming at US troops, has to be let go because he was not aware that according to MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) :

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. ”


“ If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

I strongly disagree.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

I was under the impression that people were entitled to human rights regardless of their status under the Geneva convention, but hey ho, what do I know, I'm just joe public and should happily let my government assist in the torture of captured humans

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

We are not treating them badly, most of the time anyway if the reports are true.
But they aren't POWs and have to be treated differently.
We can not just ignore their rights to due process but they are not citizens of the US in most cases and were not arrested by civilian police in most cases.

So every step that leads to them getting a show trial, OJ style, in the US with all the speeches about martytdom, is a bad idea, IMHO.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Hell, so circumnavigate the whole "civllian vs military trial" thing and adopt a really novel approach that'd have the lawyers screaming for mercy:

Try each one under the laws of the country in which they were captured. Bingo, hilarity would ensue as the lawyers learn 10 different legal codes.

[[R-MOD]dunehunter]

First you'd have to know exactly where these guys come from. And seeing how they've managed to arrest people for having a name similar to the one of a real terrorist, good luck with that.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

If they can't even prove where these people were picked up then they've got no hope of proving they were hostile combatants - they have to have records of where each person was picked up.

Otherwise it'd be like saying "This guy burgled a house. We don't know where, we don't know when, but we're pretty sure that when we arrested him, he had somebody else's DVD player under his arm".

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by SethLive!

"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
-W. Churchill

So true...