Guantanamo Detainees’ Case Heard by Supreme Court, Delayed Til June

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/05/5634/

Guantanamo Detainees’ Case Heard by Supreme Court

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay underwent a barrage of questions today from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, with the attorney portraying the case as a fundamental test of the U.S. system of justice.1205 08

The court plunged into the controversy over the military prison facility, where 305 prisoners are detained indefinitely in the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Many of the prisoners “have been held … for six years,” attorney Seth Waxman told the justices.

Under the current system, “they have no prospect” of being able to challenge their detention in any meaningful way, said Waxman, arguing on the detainees’ behalf.

snip//

The justices, however, decided to review the issue in June, after having turned down the detainees’ appeal in April. They provided no explanation, but their action followed a declaration from a military officer who criticized Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

The United States has no plans to put most of those held at Guantanamo on trial. Just three detainees face charges under the Military Commissions Act and the military has said it could prosecute as many as 80.

The consolidated cases are Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196.

[truebrit71]

1. In June? Six friggin' months from now?

Good grief!!!

At least they didn't throw it out....

[babylonsister]

3. Yea, they've 'only' been locked up for 6 years, what's 6 more months?

x(

[EFerrari]

2. K&R

[madokie]

4. so whats their plan, is it to hold each of them until they die of old age

I can't imagine turning someone loose who has been detained for years and been tortured to boot. bushco sure have gotten themselves in a pickle haven't they. I'd have already gone stark raving mad by now as I'm sure some of them have.

[babylonsister]

5. I'm pretty sure I'd have gone bonkers myself. It's plain inhumane what

we're doing.

[madokie]

7. in the navy I was stationed at a SERE camp and one of the things we did

was Aggressive interrogation, not like these guy are going thru and only lasting sometimes minutes but nothing like these guys are going thru I repeat and I've seen grown men reduced to a lump, while some would be defiant I believe until they would have dropped if we had taken it that far but of course we didn't. From those days 40 years ago I have a sense of what these poor souls are going through. I'm convinced that none of these perpertrators would last under these conditions more than a day or two if that long. using torture a man can be destroyed, to be only a shell of who he used to be, to never ever be the same again. so sad our government is guilty of doing this, so sad.

Torture is wrong no matter who does it and no matter what the circumstances are, it is wrong

Edit: replaced torture with aggressive interrogation

[IDemo]

6. I believe what that means is that last June, they decided to review it

after having turned down the detainees’ appeal in April. That review is what is currently happening with today's action. The article is not written very well to make that clear.

-edit, from another source: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511182007

On 29 June 2007, the US Supreme Court announced that it would consider the question – submitted on behalf of Guantánamo detainees – of whether the MCA has stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus appeals from such detainees, as the government asserts. The Court will hear arguments on this issue in its next term which starts on 1 October. Any decision would likely not emerge until 2008.

[babylonsister]

8. Here's a Bloomberg update-no clear ruling yet, so thanks:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aG_v5R4Ipa7k&refer=home

Guantanamo Rights Divide U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Update2)

By Greg Stohr
More Photos/Details

Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration's handling of Guantanamo Bay inmates divided the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices clashed over a law that bars the suspected terrorists from challenging their detention in federal court.

In an argument that ran 20 minutes beyond its allotted hour, the justices debated whether the 2006 statute infringed on federal courts' constitutional power to consider so-called habeas corpus petitions from the inmates. Many of the prisoners have been held for almost six years.

The court gave no clear indication how it will rule. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been the court's swing vote on terrorism cases, directed questions at both sides. Other justices voiced impatience with the administration and its contention that military hearings, coupled with limited judicial review, are an adequate substitute for habeas corpus rights.

``They say they have been unlawfully detained for six years,'' Justice John Paul Stevens said. ``And isn't that delay relevant to the question of whether they have been provided such a wonderful set of procedures?''

The case gives the court a chance to assert a powerful wartime role for the judiciary -- one that even Congress and the president together can't take away. The outcome will help determine the fate of the 300 inmates at Guantanamo's Camp Delta, set up in 2002 to detain accused al-Qaeda fighters captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aG_v5R4Ipa7k&refer=home