Wednesday, Today the Supreme Court heared oral arguments on a case which will have broad ramifications. Undoubtedly the Court's decision will affect not only the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. but also the legacy of George W. Bush.In dispute are the war powers of the president.
At issue in Boumediene v. Bush [along with Al Odah v. United States] is whether or not the enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay can expect to receive certain Constitutional rights. These rights would include due process of law and habeas corpus privileges. To any citizen of the United States these are fundamental rights.
Due process promises equal and fair treatment regardless of guilt or innocence. Habeas Corpus assures that no one is held by the state arbitrarily. Governments must give reasons for detaining individuals. These terms are learned in your most basic Constitutional law classes.
Bush and his military advisors claim that no such guarantees have ever been applied to prisoners of war. The 355 detainees at Guantanamo Bay are such prisoners. Furthermore, the U.S. federal court system lacks the appropriate jurisdiction to rule.
Typically during wartime military tribunals maintain jurisdiction in such matters. The Supreme Court previously, however, in the case Rasul v. Bush (2004) held that U.S. federal c
ourts held jurisdiction over such habeas corpus claims. The Congress quickly passed a law, the Detainee Treatment Act (2005), further complicating these claims. The Court seemingly is concerned that a president's unchecked power during war leads to a dangerous precedent. The audio linked here shows has Scalia and Alito ("Scalito") seemingly aligning with the President and Breyer and Stevens against. Remember, the quiet Justice Thomas said by this point most of the minds of the justices have been made up.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/&fg=&from=00&vid=2bdfa5fb-a136-43bf-8416-9ce1dc8b9082&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20Picks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
For this case, two new Justices are present. This was the first time the Bush appointees get to rule on matters of war. The Court's decision will fall heavy on someone.
Will it be the detainees or will it be the President?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22113362/
5 comments:
Depends on the vote of Anthony Kennedy. And John Roberts might respect precedent as usual, though that may not be likely. This is pretty murky stuff. War on Terror suspects are technically military prisoners, and POWs are always tried by military courts. However, these terrorists can be considered civillians. The question is, what defines a soldier in the world of the terrorist?
One way or another, everyone, even POWs, deserves a fair trial.
Guantanamo prisoners, wether guilty or not, deserve to know why they are being held and their families should be notified. These people are being tortured and interrogated without being charged - isnt this what the Constitution was trying to prevent? It is astounding that anyone would deny their fellow human beings a chance at justice; the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the detainees since it should be Constitutional and just in all its dealings, if it fails to do so then TIME magazine was right and it has simply become a political tool of the president.
I don't think that Gitmo prisoners fall under the laws of the Constitution but they do fall under the stipulations of moral and humane conduct. I think that holding these prisoners, guilty or not, for more than a year without charging them is inexcusable.
Some of these people were wrongly caught and its up to the US to clear their name. After all it is the land of justice and equality :)
Having said this I personally believe that Bush wants no record of who is being held at Gitmo. He wants to torture them use every other horrible tactic to gain information from these terrorists. I don't think the supreme court decision is going to change anything for two reasons. The first is pretty obvious; Bush doesn't listen to anybody nor does anybody know whats actually going on at Gitmo so their is no proof that the prosecutors can act upon. The second is the fact that Roberts promised that his court will not make landmark decisions, so therefore, I don't think it will change anything.
I agree with Sreeharsha. I don't think that the Gitmo prisoners fall under the Constitution in the sense that they are military prisoners. As Garrett points out, however, we need to redefine what qualifies someone as a terrorist. I think it wil be very hard to pass anything that protects Gitmo prisoners under the Constitution because of the secrecy that Bush keeps over Guantanamo Bay. Also, with the conservative-leaning court, I do not foresee any changes.
The Constitution is an important document; we know this for sure. The reason the United States has developed to be a very stable nation is because of the provisions that the Constitution offer to the nation. If the Constitution can be overlooked at certain circumstances, the nation would find it hard to keep consistency, however, it is also important to remember that the laws of the Constitution were written to protect the righteous principles of those who wanted to create a fair nation. Even if the Constitution does not literally give the prisoners their constitutional right to be tried, according to our principles for justice and human rights, we should give them opportunity to be tried. We would never know if one of the prisoners is really innocent. Also, if they are truly guilty, then why should the government be afraid to give them an opportunity to be legally declared guilty? We need specificity when dealing with crimes, therefore we need to give the prisoners the right to be tried.
Post a Comment