Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Gitmo Inmates’ Rights

Email    Print    Share x

Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo

Posted on Apr 2, 2007

thegully.com

Guantanamo Bay detainees hoping to challenge their cases in American courts won’t be aided in their quest by the U.S. Supreme Court, at least for now.  Six of the nine Supreme Court justices have ruled against deciding whether the “anti-terror” law that allows for inmates’ indefinite detention at Camp X-Ray is constitutional.

BBC:

Many of the 385 detainees at the camp have been held for five years or more.

None has yet been able to challenge their detention in a US civil court.

The provision stripping detainees of their right to mount a legal challenge to their confinement was upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington in February.

The court’s majority opinion was that “the will of Congress” should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.

Read more

TAGS: anti-terrorism camp x-ray gitmo guantanamo bay iraq war supreme court

SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Yahoo

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: McCain Defends Surge During Iraq Visit

Next item: Zell Wins Tribune Co. Bidding Battle

Jump to Comments

Advertisement

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By cann4ing, January 17 at 9:06 pm #

MCL, You are ignorant beyond belief.  The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in the Hamdi case that Guantanamo is U.S. territory.  It is not beyond the reach of the law.  Studies show that the vast majority of those kept there have never committed a hostile act against the U.S.  Most were picked up in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance at a time when the U.S. was offering enormous bounties for “suspected” terrorists.

Report this

By mcl, January 17 at 7:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Guantanamo Bay isn’t amarican soil we lease it from cuba,the us courts don’t have a say,and i hope they all die down there before they ever see a court room. let them go and they will kill again and it might be you next.Guantanamo Bay is the only base that isn’t on us soil it communist soil. have a nice day

Report this

By Louise, April 4, 2007 at 8:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear John,

Making change takes more than dreaming.
And creating a viable third party takes more than complaining.
Which is why it has never happened and probably never will.

The “We need a third party” folks complain a lot (like me) but never, ever actually move up to the plate and get a real organization going.

Never ... ever!

Occasionally a handful of grumblers make a half hearted effort a few months before election. But they wait to long, lack hard nosed leadership and have to practically beg their candidate to campaign. Last go around, a whole bunch of these grumblers decided not to vote. “Making a statement” I suppose. Problem is nobody’s walking around keeping a tally of the “I wont vote in protest” folks, so their “statement” is not heard, or noted. In other words, it has no value.

But, we do have a viable option. The trick is getting the grumblers to stop grumbling and study.

Kucinich WANTS to Hear From the American People!
http://kucinich.us/./

Dear Ernest,

Passage of the Military Commissions Act was a foregone conclusion, filibuster or not. Short of convincing some repub bootlicks to stand with the dems, the enactment of that particularly vile bit of legislation was a given.
The shocker is the twelve dems who voted for it! The second shocker is the “We’ll let this play out in the Supreme Court” excuse these turn-coats used to justify their lack of courage.

How come they are silent now?

SENATORS:
Carper (D-DE), Yea *
Johnson (D-SD), Yea *
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea *
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea *
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
(Course he’s an independent now, just looks like a repub)
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea *
Salazar (D-CO), Yea *
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea *
Pryor (D-AR), Yea *
Nelson (D-NE), Yea *
Nelson (D-FL), Yea *
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea *

Those of you who have the “privilege” of being represented by these folks might want to email them and ask them how come they voted for this obscenity! You might get a response. The rest of us can email them and express our opinion, which might or might not make an impact, but we wont get a response. Better yet, EVERYBODY phone their offices! Emails can easily be ignored. http://www.senate.gov/

In the meantime, we ALL have a voice in the Senate who will listen, has listened and will make change!
All we have to do is move him into the White House!
If we work together, we can make this happen!

Kucinich WANTS to Hear From the American People!
http://kucinich.us/./

Report this

By MARIAM RUSSELL, April 3, 2007 at 10:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Look at what we have on the SC and tell me you are surprised they would duck out on issues they are instructed to leave alone.

Report this

By Quy Tran, April 3, 2007 at 8:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

How could a 3-half-brainer win against a 6-no-brainer in this boxing match ?

Or we can say 3-Albertos got knocked out by 6-Gonzales.

Report this

By John Lowell, April 2, 2007 at 9:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Toby,

You ask:

“What worries me is that the Dems haven’t jumped in to change this law.
Why haven’t they?”

Because they are just the same kind of bacteria that are the Republicans, Toby. And that isn’t likely ever to change. What needed is a body blow to this one-party, two-party system, if somehow it can be managed. Nader or Buchanan couldn’t do it. These thieves are simply the paid errand-boys of lobbyists, whether its AIPAC, pharmaceuticals, big oil, you name it. This decision ought to put a cap on the illusion that we’ve got anything like a democracy in this country. We’re in a one party dictatorship with all the implements of control in the possesion of the Regime. You’re dreaming if you think otherwise.

John Lowell

Report this

By Ernest Canning, April 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #61845 by Toby.  Actually, Senate Democrats were in a position to block passage of the Military Commissions Act by way of a fillibuster.  They chose not to because, in the words of the so-called “Democratic leadership,” they wanted to insure “there was no daylight between Democrats and Republicans” on the so-called “war on terror” before the November 2006 election.

Imagine that, these “leaders” we have entrusted as the guardians of our constitutional democracy surrendering the fundamental right of habeas corpus--a right that dates back to the Magna Carta--to the neo-Fascist Bush regime simply to ensure political advantage in an election.  Sort of makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, huh.

Report this

By Toby, April 2, 2007 at 5:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, we all knew how that would play out, didn’t we?

What worries me is that the Dems haven’t jumped in to change this law.
Why haven’t they?

Habeas corpus was seen as essential to the rights of all men back in medieval times. Thats when wickedness and cruelty were accepted as the moral standard.

What a disgrace!

So much for the so-called “human rights” the United States claims to stand for!

Bunk and Piffle!

Guess we know now why the Justices wear those funny robes. It’s so we wont see how many of them don’t have a spine. Cowardly wimps!

Or maybe just bootlicks.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!

Name:

Email: (won't be displayed on the site)

Your Web Site:

Comment Title:

Your Comment:

Notify you when others comment on this article?

Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.