TV Schedule

US Supreme Court says Guantanamo detainees have rights


  3. Julie_Soller
  4. related topics
Finally! The Supreme Court declared that even in times of war, the Constitution of the United States is still the law of the United States. After years of suspending the right of habeas corpus, the United States must allow prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to defend themselves against their accusers in front of a judge.

Habeas corpus is one of the most important laws the Founding Fathers wanted to survive. It means that if someone accuses you of a crime, you have the right to face that accuser in court and defend yourself. Instead, prisoners in Guantanamo have been sitting there for years without any recourse. They may be legitimate suspects, but with all the lies and deceptions the Bush administration has perpetrated on us, some of them may be innocent. This new ruling strikes a point for freedom lovers in the United States! Way to go, Supreme Court.
Julie_Soller

44 responses // US Supreme Court says Guantanamo detainees have rights

  • AWESOME, things seem to be turning around. I wonder if the Bush Admin stopped paying the court enough... Is this their payback?

    There's so much corruption in this country I wouldn't doubt it...
    onechance
    4 responses to this
  • Actually, that's not what the ruling said at all. The ruling said that Gitmo detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in court because they are protected by the US Constitution. That is a far cry from the detentions themselves being declared unconstitutional!

    UPDATE: HEADLINE HAS BEEN CHANGED AND IS NOW CORRECT.
    Blazesboy
    3 responses to this
  • We're one step further along in dragging the Bush Adminstration into the 21st century! Now if we can only get him to stop torturing people as if this were the Salem Witch trials we'll be almost there.

    I wonder if the Supreme Court did this because they really believe it was the right thing to do or if they are just desperately trying to protect their own legacy?

    When Bush's approval ratings were in the 90 percent range they didn't seem to be overly concerned with the rights of "those people." Now that Bush is swan diving into a puddle of shit they may see which way the wind is blowing and are no longer so eager to align themselves with the man or his policies.

    I'm reminded of Hitler's former henchmen all shrugging their shoulders after their war was lost and claiming, "He did what? Really? I had no idea Adolf was like that. I, uh, I only met the guy a few times. Never liked him either."

    As the sun sets on the Bush regime his supporters on the Supreme Court will be heard muttering similar statements.
    crob80227
    2 responses to this
  • watch this comment being used here, here and here
    Hey, someone actually remembered we had a constitution!
    Perry8331
    1 response to this
  • yeah, we needed the us Supreme Court to tell us this!
    troyka
  • there is a reason we have a due process, so innocent people don't get locked up. the justice system is not perfect, proven by people who were let go for serving 20+ year sentences for murder/rape, and freed by DNA.

    even if only one Gitmo prisoner is innocent, then gets released too late, and does a suicide job in america because he/she was mistreated and not given representation, that endangers us, by our government, creating future terror!
    Wessagusset_Oracle
  • I thought by the title this was real news.

    Change the title its misleading
    clayjj05
    3 responses to this
  • Antonin Scalia's and Clarence Thomas' lack of understanding of the constitution never fails to amaze me. I think the average high school kid has a better grasp of the constitution than these two morons.
    diabolical44
  • Your blatant disrespect for two of America's most brilliant men is astounding! They have a better "grasp" of the Constitution than anyone like Satan, I mean Ruth Bater Ginsberg
    mrpibb19
    3 responses to this
  • Bush and his administration need to be tried for crimes against humanity. What right do they think they have to take away Habeas Corpus? All his Executive orders and National Security Presidential Directives via Homeland Security need to be thrown out. No one in Washington, or the main stream media for that matter, is paying any attention to real issues, the trans-texas corridor, or the security and prosperity partnership(spp.gov). That snail of a man David Gergen is a "Senior CNN Political Analyst". He's a member of the Bohemian Grove! Youtube Alex Jones confronting him! Wake Up America.
    nickdaniel42
  • Big ups for clarifying that headline Julie. In a world where we see "grey areas" exploited so readily, clarity is so important.
    digitrash
  • This is good.
    current89
  • It's about time our country recognizes that people (including criminals) indeed have rights.
    VictoriaRenee
  • watch this comment being used here and here
    Suspending the rights of our suspected enemies only opens the door to suspending the rights of American citizens. Today was a major victory for American citizens and the US Constitution.
    brycepatingre
  • now that they have rights like we do, are they officially allowed to execute them like they execute us as American citizens? <------ this is a real question
    clayjj05
    1 response to this
  • Never thought I's see the day when the Supreme Court would make a decision like this with the Bush appointed Chief Justice Roberts at the the helm. But, then again "these" rights don't directly affect someone's pocket book like the "imminent domain" decision of a few years ago. Yes, I know that decision was before Roberts came onboard.
    Wreyeter
  • Why are we wasting so much tax money keeping a bunch of 15 year old and 80 year old "suspects" in dentention centers like GitMo?

    I think the idea that GitMo houses "the worst of the worst" has pretty much been totally discredited at this point.

    A 15 year old Afgahni boy tosses a grenade as US soliders during a firefight four years ago -- and we, the taxpayers, get to spend $30,000 a year holding him at GitMo?

    Paying for GitMo is not cheap! Paying for a regular US prison is very expensive -- and the GitMo facility and specialized personnel (torturers) is even more expensive.

    Forget international laws and human rights -- why aren't the Republican voters pissed off at how much of their hard earned money Bush is pissing away on GitMo just to save face and appear "tough on terror"?

    Why not just send him back to AFGHANISTAN and hold him in a jail there?

    About 99 percent of these POW's, I mean, "detainees" don't know shit about anything and aren't worth a poop on a hot day.

    Send them back to their countries of origin and jail them there -- it's cheaper if nothing else.
    crob80227
  • There's no telling how many of these folks are held unlawfully. It will be interesting to see who gets to stand trial and who doesn't.
    aaronklong
  • i hate Bush:o<
    BoogieCruz
  • Anyone who has read the book "Homicide" by David Simon (awesome, must read) knows that confessions obtained by too-lengthy or harsh interrogations--not even close to torture--are usually thrown out by courts. For some inconceivable reason, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cronies seem to think that this is not only a legitimate and justifiable means of obtaining information, but that their information will actually be worth anything. Looks like they need to read more. Starting with the U.S. Constitution.
    caline
  • I'm with NickDanial42 on this one, Bush and his administration should be tried for war crimes & crimes against humanity.

    It's only taken six years for the Supreme Court to defend the foundations on which it was built with Bush kicking and screaming all the way.
    Purdey
    1 response to this
  • It's just a matter of time before Americans, get the same treatment with the constitution totally being side step and people treating other people this way. Man can't be trusted at any level to make wise decisions when put in control of others, they become abusive and brain washed into believing what there commanders tell them. If it don't feel right, sound right, or look right, it's not right. If your commander told you to jump off a roof head first would you? This guy Bush is out of his mind, am I the only person in the world who can see this? He said that he respects the decision but he don't have to agree with it. What kind of thug attitude is that? Did you see that mad man look on his face during the press conference, hair wild look like he wanted to shoot the justices for their ruling. Shit is going to hit the fan when these prisoners tell what was going on at Guantanamo. The prisoners in some US prisons get treated bad. We need to stop thinking that people who are in prison are all bad people. It's true that some should get treated like shit for the crimes they have committed in regards to US prisoners. We need to take a look at are selves and find out how we want the world to view us.
    Rome43
  • wow, that was a narrow decision. how phukn stupid is the "Supreme" Court? i wish someone would beat the fuck out of these croney mferz in public for all the bs they've put us in. The rest would run out like cockroaches.
    echoz
  • I vote we "detain" Bush!
    ButterUpButtercup
  • i vote we kick his ass! ! !
    BoogieCruz
  • I've been following this issue very closely for several years now and am currently doing research into the treatment of detainees classified as "unlawful enemy combatants" by the Bush administration during this War on Terror. I've just read the Boudmediene v. Bush case, and I must say that the Supreme Court is finally living up to their responsibility of upholding the Constitution. And now without a Republican controlled Congress there won't be a piece of legislation that comes out to undo this ruling like what happened in 2006. Last year the Supreme Court ruled against the administration's lack of adequte appeals process for detainees held in Guantanamo Bay in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, but then Congress repelled the ruling through the provisions in the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Not this time though!

    This new ruling actually specially goes against these provisions in the MCA mentioned above. The MCA had made the review of UEC cases very narrowly limited in scope to be heard by only the US District Court of Appeals of DC, which ensured that the US Court wouldn't be able to question the general constitutionality of the President's Military Tribunal System. but today this is no more. The Court now is saying that any detainee is entitled to general habeas petitions within the US without the faulty statutory restrictions passed by the Congress in the 2006 MCA. The court maintains that the Write of Habeas Corpus cannot be revoked without a formal application of the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, something that can only occur during times of in "be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
    the public Safety may require it.” Art. I, §9, cl. 2;
    dirtydirtyd6

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.