U.S. Rights Stance Faces Big Test In Guantanamo Case

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/Reuters

By REUTERS
Published: December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The tarnished U.S. human rights image faces a major test this week as the Supreme Court considers whether terrorism suspects held for years without charges at Guantanamo Bay are wrongly detained. The court's nine justices on Wednesday are to hear the appeal of Guantanamo prisoners who say a 2006 law unconstitutionally denies them a meaningful way to challenge in court their detention at the U.S. Naval Base on Cuba.

The case is being watched by governments and human rights activists around the world, who say President George W. Bush has overreached his powers and trampled on rights in the war on terrorism he launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"The rule-of-law, humanitarian and human rights principles at stake in this case are the very principles which the coalition of liberal democracies together seek to uphold and defend in the 'war on terror,"' British and European parliament members said in one of the many outside briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the detainees....

The high court has ruled against the administration in two previous Guantanamo cases, but Congress adopted new measures aimed at keeping such cases out of court. A federal appeals court sided with the government in February in upholding the new measures. The Supreme Court initially refused to consider an appeal, but in a rare move reversed its decision and decided to hear the case....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-court-guantanamo.html

[Jim__]

1. I think it's all up to Justice Kennedy.

All the other votes are predictable.

I long for the Warren Court. They'd throw the government lawyers right out of court.

[ixion]

2. it is pathetic that this is even a question...

of course it's illegal to hold people for years w/o charges.

[Q3JR4]

3. I agree with you

and if either of us were sitting on the court that's how we'd rule. Unfortunately what's legal changes over time because it's all in the interpretation.

On the one hand it's how you can allow for the law's meaning to be updated year to year, but on the other hand it means that one or two people can change the meaning of U.S. law whenever new blood enters the court.

[flamin lib]

4. I say leave things as they are for now. Let the next Democratic

President declare the whole administration enemy combatants and lock 'em away in GITMO never to be heard from again.

Then change the law.