Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Administration, Resurrects Habeas Corpus
The government effectively did this through the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a legal measure meant to bolster an original executive order signed shortly after September 11, 2001, that gave federal authorities the power to detain suspected enemy operatives indefinitely without recourse to legal process and a trial. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, the passage of which was led by Sen. John McCain, specifically denied Guantanamo detainees the right to petition federal courts on grounds of habeas corpus.
In a scathing rebuttal of Bush administration policy, the Supreme Court maintained that the detainees had the same basic rights as anyone held in custody by officials of the United States. In its 70-page decision, the Court noted: "Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . "
Antonin Scalia, vehemently opposed to the ruling, wrote in his dissent that the decision would "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" because it would make the War on Terror "harder on us."
At present, there are roughly 270 detainees at Guantanamo, a controversial federal holding facility opened shortly after September 11, 2001, to hold suspected terrorists and enemy combatants in the War on Terror against the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court ruling directly affects 19 cases being tried currently and may have an effect on some 200 detainee lawsuits that are currently on hold with the federal court in Washington. But as law professor James Cohen of Fordham University maintains, "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20..." That, of course, is when the next president takes office. Cohen has two detainee clients at Guantanamo.
Cohen no doubt bases that opinion on a statement by president Bush, who commented on the decision from Rome. "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented.'' Bush is also considering formulating new legislation to circumvent the latest decision.
The 5-4 decision is just the latest in a string of decisions that have consistently ruled as unconstitutional the detention of uncharged prisoners or other procedural matters regarding detainees since the executive order was issued. Each time a decision has been rendered, however, the Bush administration has supported legislation that obviated or legally flanked the decisions. Both presidential hopefuls, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, have pledged to close Guantanamo if elected.
But closing Guantanamo does little to affect the detainees and their denied rights, rights the Bush administration has maintained the detainees do not have because they are not American citizens. Whether Bush seeks new legislation or not will have little to no effect on those being held at present save maybe those currently on trial or those preparing for trial.
Still, the decision does have an effect on the Constitution. By resurrecting habeas corpus for those detained in areas not under the sovereignty of the United States (Guantanamo is technically part of Cuba) and reaffirming due process of the individual, the Supreme Court has reestablished a cornerstone of the American legal system and, according to Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, of Salon.com, "...restored one of the most critical safeguards against the very tyranny this country was founded to prevent."
Sources:
Mark Sherman, Associated Press, "Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush," Guardian.co.uk
Glenn Greenwald, "Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act," Salon.com
Published by Saul Relative
WVU graduate, with degrees in History, English, Secondary Education, Computer Programming, and Psychology (and nearly a degree in Political Science). Originally from West Virginia, with stints in Virginia,... View profile
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights No group has suffered more from Bush's "war on terror" than the people of Iraq. Despite worldwide protests, countless Iraqi civilians have been killed, injured, unlawfully detained, and/or tortured in the US-led war o...
-
Truth Behind the Military Commissions Act of 2006
Bush signs the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on October 17, 2006. This act, which has caused a lot of controversy, can deny the rights of US citizens. The President and Sec...
-
President Bush and "The War on Terror"
My personal views on President Bush's War on Terror and how the funds spent on his war effort could have been put to better use elsewhere.
-
War on Terror
As the "War on Terror" and the Military Industrial Complex consume vital resources, we, as a nation, place ourselves at risk the downfall of our nation and our way of life.
-
Why We Must Win the War on Terror
Why this disabled veteran and concerned parent feels we must win the War on Terror.
- The Military Commissions Act Makes the Writ of Habeas Corpus a Thing of the Past
- The Military Commissions Act: Suspending Habeas Corpus
- Amnesty International Pleads with Supreme Court to Uphold Prisoners' Rights to Hab...
- Bush Administration Targets Nations for Piracy
- Rhetorical Use of Fear by the Bush Administration
- The Constitutional Issue of Habeas Corpus Rights for Guantanamo Bay Detainees
- Habeas Corpus in the 21st Century
|
|
8 Comments
Post a CommentThank you, Orchiolum. I find myself constantly in search of clarity and feel that it is probably a universal seeking. I believe the Bush administration has really muddied the waters of both international and domestic politics, not to mention due process and other legal issues, to the point of recklessness. I am hopeful that whoever takes Bush's place will lead an administration that rectifies many of those arrogant wrongs...
Perhaps this decision is a signal that we will find the strength and courage to undo some of the damage Bush and Co. has done to America and to the world. I appreciate your style and clarity...very well written.
The problem with the War on Terror(ism), KYJurisDoctor, is that it is an extremely ambiguous term. We should always be at war with terrorism. Who truly wishes to see innocents blown up or killed in the name of some half-baked political cause? We should always be diligent against the potential terrorist and their threats. However, this should not be done through fear and civil liberties disintegration. We can even declare war on terrorist states or extra-national terrorist organizations. But to claim a war on terror is ridiculous and only serves two puposes: polarizing the public through unabashed fearmongering and centralizing the power in the executive branch where it should not be. Executive orders and presidential signings, the NSA wiretaps, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 are all foundational aspects of centralization. As Bush has so aptly proven, centralizing the power of government and placing that power in the hands of an idiot is dangerous...
Right you are, blackhorizon. The Patriot Act is the foundation for a centralized executive branch. It needs reworked.
While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."
I guess one can REASONABLY conclude that the Court's Majority knew where they wanted to end up, and proceeded to get there, however s-l-o-w-l-y they weaved their way through precedential minefield!
OsiSpeaks.com
finally some good new, that meens thatu get a trial now if your arrested as a terrorit, next the patriot act section 8 plz
Thanks, 3lilangels...
Very nice work!!!!!