Gitmo Argument In SCOTUS Today

Today, the Supreme Court heard cases related to the Guantanamo detention cases.

For background on the issues, see my post here and here.


Skip to comment form

    • oculus on December 5, 2007 at 21:06
    • documel on December 5, 2007 at 22:43

    How can we expect a total victory from this “strict constructionist” group of hypercrits?  No matter how they rule, there will be an out for the Bushies to exploit.  This is the third (?) time around, the detainees “won” the other two, yet, Guantanimo is still their address.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if American lawyers displayed the spine of their Pakistani peers?

  1. to the SCOTUS was the thing that convinced me that the political bogs were going to be a factor in the future.  We might be able to derail a nomination like those today.

    • oculus on December 5, 2007 at 23:04

    recently the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was more conservative than the Bush administration.  Issue was employment law.

    • Edger on December 6, 2007 at 00:24

    Today, the US government will argue before the Supreme Court that just because it “leases” Guantanamo Bay garrison from Castro’s government doesn’t make it US Territory. If NOT US Territory, then the US military does NOT have to afford prisoners the same Constitutional rights that would be available to protect “illegal aliens” in the US. If Guantanamo is US Territory, Nevada becomes sovereign territory of the UK, because the UK leases 80% of the Desert!

    The other 20% are owned by Baron Hilton, who is a British Citizen and a Canadian Company which is also part of the British Common-stealth Nations.


    I wonder what the Vegas line on the case was.

    • nocatz on December 6, 2007 at 02:31

    Antonin sounds skeptical

    “We had 400,000 German prisoners – 400,000 – in our country in World War II,” Justice Antonin Scalia noted, “and there was not a single habeas petition.”

    “Do you have a single case in the 220 years of our country . . . in which habeas was granted to an alien in a territory that was not under the sovereign control of the United States?” Scalia asked the detainees’ attorney, Seth Waxman, adding later that “there’s not a single one in history.”

  2. The disparity between the tribunal’s judgments and the intelligence community’s consensus view that Kurnaz is innocent is detailed in newly released military and court documents that track his fate. His attorneys, who sued the Pentagon to gain access to the documents, say that they reflect policies that result in mistreatment of the hundreds of foreigners who have been locked up for years at the controversial prison.


    • nocatz on December 6, 2007 at 20:21

    has transcripts and audio

  3. who, what, where, in terms I can understand would be appreciated. However thanks to the links I now realize my ignorance extends to my apparent misinterpretation of common law, holy shit. I thought it was the Law, underneath all the bullshit of nationalization, the law we had evolved regardless of the assholes in power. The one we peasants had. Who knew but the lawyers it was president for those who sat on thrones. The Great Writ sounds great but in reality according to the links is just more bullshit. On to the Hammurabi codes perhaps they will offer a solution that deals with primal justice rather then presidents.        

Comments have been disabled.