Guantanamo detainees have rights in civilian courts. It’s about damn time.
Although I’m not surprised, I am disappointed that this case was decided 5-4. And it’s interesting that John Roberts said the United States offers “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” Which is funny because the current administration redefined the term “enemy combatant” to basically mean “people who we think have ties to al Qaeda or the Taliban, whether we have actual evidence or not, apprehended abroad and often in secret with absolutely no oversight and outside the rule of all domestic and international law.” The term “enemy combatant” is an old one, but the current definition of that term is totally new. So sure, we’ve given them the most general set of procedural protections ever because this is the first time we’ve ever dealt with “enemy combatants” as defined in this particular way. It’s certainly disturbing that the courts are supposed to be a check on executive power, and instead the Chief Justice of the highest court in the country is regurgitating executive propaganda.
Either way, it’s good news.
{ 11 comments }
“Abroad?”
You da lawyer now, Jill, but reading the Jose Padilla post in Wikipedia, it’s still not clear to me whether Bush’s assertion that he can declare someone on American soil to be an ‘enemy combatant’ has been definitively voided by the Supreme Court. This sentence stands out for me:
On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla’s appeal from the 4th Circuit Court’s decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an “enemy combatant” without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.
At any rate, I agree that it’s good news the case you cite went 5-4 and not 4-5 … I just hope McSame isn’t afforded the opportunity to tip the balance.
That’s because most of them are racist and hate anybody who isn’t rich, white, Judeo-Christian, Western, and upper class. But, I’m glad that there is progress for securing rights for Gitmo detainees. about f–king time.
FINALLY some good news. The ACLU has been messaging me like crazy about this whole situation for months now.
Hello, this is unrelated to the present post, but did you notice the article about equal parenting in the NYT?
A chronological reminder from Glenn Greenwald:
“Three of the five Justices in the majority — John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) — are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito — are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.
John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It’s not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.”
Thanks Lefty Dude, my depression has returned :P
“It’s not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.”
And every reactionary realizes this. That is why they will get out and vote for McCain come Nov. no matter how much they may dislike him. Heck, they’d vote for someone “pro-choice” like Giuliani even because they know that the (R) after the name means that, no matter what his personal beliefs are, he can be counted on to nominate reactionary judges/justices. And think about it — the judicial branch is the most important one to “control” … after all, the legislators can make laws and the executive branch can implement them, but if there is any dispute over any matter of law, it is the judge who has the final say.
Before John McCain got the nomination, there was all sorts of talk from the right about “oh noes, we can’t have McCain” (or whomever) … but note that once the nomination was cinched, a lot of that talk died down.
But what about us liberals? Are liberals going to unite around Obama in the same way that reactionaries will unite around McCain no matter how they feel about him? Forget about what Obama will or will not do as president — you don’t see reactionaries worrying about what McCain will or will not do … they have the big picture in mind. Why don’t we?
So, does this mean Gitmo detainees and all enemy combatants will be tried in civilian courts and have the same rights as American citizens, including habeus corpus? I think that would be good, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not clear if that’s the decision.
No. It merely strikes down the part of the law that constructs an alternate kangaroo court system that substitutes (poorly) for habeas protections. It affirms the right of gitmo detainees to submit writs, and when they are rejected they go right back into the kangaroo court system.
Roberts’ dissent is predicated on the notion that the right to Habeas does not exist for anyone, including citizens on American soil. According to his argument it’s not actually a right, it’s a guideline. Seriously.
DAS, the party bases don’t decide the election, never have, never will. Reactionaries can vote for whoever the fuck they want, independants and frustrated (many religious) Republicans will send Obama and his Christmas-for-Progressives Supreme Court to the White House this holiday season.
I have a lot of hopes for the upcoming election.
One thing I have come to believe, the longer I study the law, is that there is a push-pull dynamic in play that will, in the end, make the courts more reasonable. One explanation for the recent spate of more liberal employment law decisions was the justices’ suprise at the public anger over Ledbetter. Let’s say we get this conservative supreme court and it does “its worst.” If anything, I think that will get voters to become outraged, and put more pressure on the political branches (and the state courts) to get what they want.
It is a damn shame that Obama doesn’t say he wants judges like Stevens and Brennan and Marshall. As Cass Sunstein pointed out, after the latter two left the court, the court shifted to the right. We have some pretty hard righties on the court, but no hard lefties.
I also have some hopes for Alito. He isn’t quite what the Republicans had in mind. They expected (and we feared) a Scalia clone, and thought that Roberts would be the more moderate one. Turns out we/they had it exactly backwards. With age, Alito’s views may soften. The conservatives may come to view him like they view Souter. As a mistake. But this may be wishful thinking on my part.
Comments on this entry are closed.