Supreme Court Rules Against Gitmo Kangaroo Courts

Good news for a change.  In 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that internees at Guantanamo are entitled to have their cases heard by a U.S. Federal Court.

So much for an October execution of KSM to improve Republican prospects in the election (or just make its theft more credible).

This AP Story is just a stub (update: now enough details to quote)-

Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

Associated Press

4 Minutes ago

WASHINGTON – The 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 handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”


Skip to comment form

  1. Told you I’d be around sometimes.

    Don’t think I’m going to let you get away with anything behind my back.

  2. Is this simply the first opportunity they’ve had to rule on this?

  3. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”

    Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented

    Big surprise that these were the four who dissented.

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States … what a disgrace.

  4. Best news team on the blogs!

  5. From Justice Kennedy, h/t to Adam B

    Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply…. Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say “what the law is.”

  6. There has been so much bad news, gloomy outlooks, and absolutely horrendous acts done in my name lately, I didn’t realize how uptight and depressed I had gotten. The catharsis allowed by this bit of SUPER GOOD news, is suprising to me, I wouldn’t have thought that I would have the reaction I had.

    But I am so glad I did. And even more glad the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. This seems to be, to me, a watershed decsion by the SC. Perhaps this is a sign that it, or at least one member, is changing direction. It is hard for me to not get carried away,……….. ah what the hell, I think I’ll be optimistic for the day.

    • robodd on June 13, 2008 at 2:31 am

    in its fear-based ludicrousness, stating that the dissent knows that the ruling: “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

    Gee, I wonder what evidence they have to support these fearful conclusions?  Ah, but what need of evidence in the law, right?  The dissenters just know better, just like Feith knew torture was the right thing to do, despite Geneva and the law. Feel free to express and play out your paranoia on the taxpayer’s dime.  Sure.

    These people have no business being judges on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

  7. Jonathan Turley on with Keith.

    Also, Scalia “worst person” (I hope)

Comments have been disabled.