WASHINGTON — A divided 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.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo,” Kennedy wrote.
The Suspension Clause is a constitutional guarantee that blocks Congress from suspending habeas corpus.
“The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected,” the opinion reads.
What pure unadulterated HORSE SHIT!
I would strongly suggest that the FIVE assholes that ruled the way they did…HOUSE at least 25 of these foul bastards from GITMO…Up close and personal…Like THEIR HOMES!
This could be Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first chance at a good fuck. She looks like a fucking camel, anyway.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here…BUT, think of the ramifications and consequences should Hussein Obama, win the election. Strike the prior statement from the court record…Make that, MOST of the choir.
A SCOTUS, packed with Leftist’s. One, maybe two with beards and THEIR OWN ROBES.
Females of the U.S….From what I’ve seen in my local area, burka’s would assist you. You will love the “honor killing” thingy. Getting “stoned”….NO NOT that way, sweet chickies.
Males of the U.S….Again, from what I’ve seen in my local area, long beards would assist you. You will love self flagellation. A fair bit of you will NOT miss your heads, anyway.
Would someone please tell, Mr. Kevni
Rubb Rudd, that the U.S. had a prick at GITMO, by the name of Dawood of OZ, (who by the way, should have been DOA) when Dawood of OZ left GITMO, he was still a prick, but a fat one.
Same goes for our little cowboy John Phillip Walker Lindh aka “Jihad Johnnie”. Who certainly had I been there and lived…would have been sent home, with a toe tag.
June 12, 2008, 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm
Comment Removed By Administrator
June 12, 2008, 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm
This wuold be this Amnesty International?
The one that spends far too much time banging on about the West and not enough about the real travesties of justice?
June 12, 2008, 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm
Branded by Amnesty International-so what.
They have the perspective of one of my pet rocks if they think the Club Gitmo experience is that bad.
June 12, 2008, 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm
This is the worst SCOTUS decision since Roe v. Wade, and I hope some of those bastards live long enough to see that. Those imprisoned at Guantanamo are illegal enemy combatants according to the Geneva Convention rules, and so the US technically has the right to summarily execute them with no trial whatsoever. They have no rights at all after fighting an illegal guerilla war out of a recognizable uniform, period. That’s how the Geneva Convention rules work.
So, next time we have a more conventional conflict with uniformed legal combatants, guess the fuck what? We’re going to have to give every last one of them access to our civilian courts. Fucking craptastic.
Can you think of anything more idiotic than that? Can you see why I think anyone with a law degree should be disqualified to be a judge? Nine thirteen year old boys and girls who were raised properly could have made a better decision.
June 12, 2008, 8:22 pm at 8:22 pm
Can anyone explain to me how these detainees/enemy combatants/terrorists have the right of habeas corpus under the American Constitution, since they are not American citizens subject to its laws outside its boundaries, and are, in fact, enemy combatants/terrorists?
I would think we made this distinction obvious by returning Johnny Walker Lindh to the US for trial. David Hicks got to go home to Australia because he turned out to be pretty much a nobody, and we didn’t think it was worth it to offend a staunch ally by keeping him.
June 13, 2008, 10:59 am at 10:59 am
Really not surprising in the wake of McCain-Feingold and the eminent domain case(Bakke?). This was also spun as a defeat for Bush, however this was a case against standing Congressional law that was enacted because these idiots had ruled twice against our standing practices.
I say we dig up both Lincoln and FDR and put them on trial. Both of these guys did the same thing and against US citizens. Seems we had Club Gitmos all over the west in WW2*.
This Court will issue a ruling on the DC gun case this year. Scary isn’t it!
*not here to argue the rightness or wrongness of the process just pointing out a fact.