quote:The court said detainees, whether American citizens or not, retain their rights, at least to a legal hearing, even if they are held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Guantanamo Bay is under U.S. control and thus appropriately within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the high court ruled.
The president's constitutional powers, even when supported by Congress in wartime, do not include the authority to close the doors to an independent review of the legality of locking people up, the justices said.
After a VERY quick reading, it seems these cases say absent a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (which is authorized by the Constitution in limited circumstances), there must be some access to judicial review of anyone detained in territory under U.S. control.
Be careful, the article is misleading in at least one respect. It implies that Scalia and Stevens were in favor of keeping Hamdi detained. In the Hamdi case (the citizen case), the Scalia/Stevens dissent seems to be saying that absent a criminal charge (likely of treason) or other justification within the scope of the criminal justice system, a citizen cannot be detained unless Congress has suspended the Writ.
I've always said, when Scalia recognizes a right, he recognizes it to the hilt. Witness the recent sentencing guidelines case.
I'll try to read them more carefully tonight and give my impressions. Remember, a court may still ultimately rule that the detentions are valid; the decisions just require a hearing.
Dagonee Edit: Padilla's suit was thrown out on procedural grounds, with instructions on where he can file to be heard.
Edit: Changed title to see if that piqued more interest.
posted
I actually read this before you changed the title. Though I have oft proclaimed my love for Bush, I do think this is the right decision. To deny any review is to let the terrorists make us un-American.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. These decisions are going to keep Constitutional scholars very busy for a while. I think one thing they do very well is highlight how impossible it is to make general statements about any justices' judicial philosophy.
posted
I look forward to hearing more details. The whole idea that the President can lock people away in a legal no-where land was very disturbing, not because I don't trust President Bush, but because I don't trust what other administrations would do with that precedant.
This may allow people whom our government has made "disappear" be able to call their families and let them know that they are alive.
Now I look forward to hearing:
1) President Bush's take on this decision, which I expect will be calm and reasonable.
2) Vice President Cheney's take on this decision, which would not surprise me if it was misinformed and bombastic. He has played up the Manic Conservative for the Right Wing Press on a couple of occasions. I could see him complaining about the dangers of judicial activism, etc, to get more conservative votes this election.
3) Attorney General Ashcroft's take on this decision. Here we will see how the administration plans to handle this legal situation from now on.
4) The case of the dirty bomber, which is different than the above--he was taken prisoner in the US, not fighting our troops overseas. His case has been put on hold while it is refiled correctly or some technical problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's going to be interesting is that we may get to hear the government's justification for detention. Even if it's based on secret evidence, some of the papers will be public.
I think all 3 decisions underscored the right to counsel, which should guarantee some family notification.
posted
either that or we're going to see mass releases ala abu ghraib because the administration doesn't want to simply admit people were being detained on little or no evidence.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Witness the recent sentencing guidelines case.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
