quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

See the idea of trial hasn't even been reached yet for most of them.
If they got their Status hearing then that determines all sorts of things.
If they are given a POW Status then they can be held until hostilities stop. BUT they have to be afforded a specific level of treatment.
If they are found to be Illegal Combatants in the status hearings then they can also be held until hostilities stop, but ther treatment standards a less.

The actual trials for terrorist activities can be put off for a long time once the status has been determined by an actual hearing. It's a very grey area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918KL4O0

I just heard Bush's reaction on the radio: he says he's disappointed (ya think?). David Rifkin said it's 'tremendously arrogant' of the Supreme Court.

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

If the detainees were tried in a military court would they then be either returned to their home countries or held in US military prisons? 

I will assume you meant  if  found guilty...Unlike the small town sherrif who assures his prisoner of a fair trial and then we'll hang you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer


If they are found to be Illegal Combatants in the status hearings then they can also be held until hostilities stop, but ther treatment standards a less.

The actual trials for terrorist activities can be put off for a long time once the status has been determined by an actual hearing. It's a very grey area.

quote:



"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented. And their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush added: "We'll study this opinion and we'll do so with this in mind: to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so that we can truly say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to  protect you.'"

quote:



[James Ross, the legal and policy director for Human Rights Watch (HRW)], told RFE/RL that he doubts the Bush administration will try again to have Congress pass another law that might answer the Supreme Court's objections. First, he says, both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats; and second, this is a general-election year in which most members are concerned with reelection campaigns.

Also, Ross said the administration may conclude that a further effort to do away with "habeas corpus" would be futile because the court ruled that the right of challenging detention goes deeper than statute law.

"This decision, I think, is particularly positive because it really does get to the root of the issue, finally," Ross said. "In  earlier decisions, for example, the court said that under the federal law there were these protections. So [Bush and Congress] changed the federal law. But here they're saying, 'Look, it's deeper than that.' It is a  decision that talks about the fundamental concept of habeas corpus under the Constitution, not as a matter of simply federal law."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Ok Merc, I tried to be nice but so be it.

You have now repeatedly tried to conflate people being held by the US government having the privilege of Habeas Corpus to somehow be meaning a world wide enforcement of the US Constitution on uninvolved parties. The question then becomes who does have the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the US Constitution. Who, where, when and Constitutional references please. Note that you've already repeatedly stated that simply being in the custody of the US government is insufficient.

Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.
The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.
The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.
In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.
Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.
The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.
It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.
There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are



That was an editorial printed in this mornings N.Y. Times and pretty much sums it up IMO
My apologies for the lousy cut and paste job

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I don't see how providing lunch or a shower excuses the violation of constitutional rights.

quote:

It's not about what you think of the people that are being held: your personal opinion of them is irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918KL4O0

I just heard Bush's reaction on the radio: he says he's disappointed (ya think?). David Rifkin said it's 'tremendously arrogant' of the Supreme Court.

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

See Merc I knew we agreed on alot of issues,I too was distressed to see that 4 SCJOUS don't seem to be able to read and or apply the Constitution in all matters before them