A federal judge ruled Monday that foreign terror suspects held in Cuba can challenge their confinement in U.S. courts and she criticized the Bush administration for holding hundreds of people without legal rights.
A federal judge ruled Monday that foreign terror suspects held in Cuba can challenge their confinement in U.S. courts and she criticized the Bush administration for holding hundreds of people without legal rights.
Judge Joyce Hens Green, handling claims filed by about 50 detainees at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, said the Supreme Court made clear last year that they have constitutional rights that lower courts should enforce.
“Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats,” she wrote, “that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years.”
Hmm. And here I was thinking we fought and died for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when all this time what we were really fighting for was the right of those bent on slaughtering us to manipulate our legal system in order to avoid detention and continue their ideological jihad—all so some federal judge could pat herself on the back for her political bravery in protecting the “human rights” of soulless killing machines.
Green also ruled that hearings set up by the government to determine if the prisoners are “enemy combatants” are unconstitutional. Those hearings, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, had been criticized by civil rights groups because detainees are not represented by lawyers and are not told of some of the evidence against them – including some information that the judge said may have been obtained by torture or coercion.
“Her opinion sends a message to the rest of the world that democracy is still here,” said Barbara Olshansky, an attorney with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing detainees.
Is that the message it sends? Because the one I get is “the judicial branch of the US has decided that it alone is responsible for dictating war-time policy, and that access to lawyers—and to the American legal system in general —are the de facto right of battlefield captures.”
The decision conflicts with a ruling two weeks ago by another federal judge in the same court who considered a similar lawsuit brought by a different group of detainees. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found last year’s Supreme Court ruling did not provide Guantanamo detainees the legal basis to try to win their freedom in American courts.
Time to move the detention camps out of US jurisdiction and be done with this nonsense. Because some cases simply do not belong in US Civil and Criminal Courts—no matter what certain judges interested in bolstering both the power and reach of the US judicial branch continue to insist.
I think this might be a damn fine time to move these “gentlepeople” to Iraq and let the new duly elected government sort them out.
Stephen
Joyce Hens Green is a Carter appointee who does not seem to be very highly regarded by the D.C. Circuit, which is the court of appeals that her cases are taken to. This kind of ruling isn’t be a surprise.
That Congress hasn’t dealt with this problem is much more of a surprise.
The message it sends me is that you’re better off killing them in the field of battle. There’s no judge that can stop you from killing people in the course of the battle.
“isn’t be”??? Sorry about that.
What you said, Jeff
I’d like to add that the “judge’s” usual sop to the Geneva Convention actually proves she’s never read it.
Word.
What is the deal with the Barbaras of the world these days? Boxer, Streisand (yes, I know it’s Barbra…6/6), and now this Olshansky? This much I know: If I have another son I am SO not naming him Barbara.
Most excellent post. Let’s send the activist judges to Guantanamo. I’ll devise some torture protocols for them during their eternal stay.
I’ve always appreciated our Lady of Justice sculptures. But isn’t about time she loses the blindfold? And puts a thumb on the scale?
Wow, this is seriously messed up on so many levels. I don’t know that the federal courts do have jurisdiction. If I remember my civ pro (and I try not to) it’s iffy at best. These folks were captured on foreign soil and remain on a U.S. Military base outside of the U.S. or its territories.
Then to grant them Constitutional rights, I presume on the basis of their presence on a U.S. military base? What other basis does she have? It’s one thing to apply Constitutional principles to non citizens on U.S. soil, but this? Is Guantanamo somehow afforded the status of a territory like Guam or Puerto Rico?
Very shaky legal ground here. The good news is that the split within the circuit should result in a quick ruling from the DC Circuit.
I’m reading the damned decision. The Surpreme Court paved the way for this with Rasul v. Bush last summer. Scalia’s dissent in that case makes the majority like like pre-schoolers.
Congress needs to re-write the Habeas Corpus statute right away. The other step is indeed to move these people elsewhere.
I hear Bagram’s beautiful this time of year…
Well, ok. Not.
But who really cares, y’know?
You know, I was going to do “And in a related story,” but I couldn’t come up with anything that would look like satire compared to the actual rulings we get all the time. Remember the stinking, crusty homeless guy in NJ who, a judge ruled, had a right to hang out in the Public Library, forcing everyone else to leave because of the cloud of green gas around him?
The stupidity of this decision exists on so many levels. First, the idea that war prisoners/detainees have US constitutional rights is itself ludicrous – and a pure invention on the part of these idiot judges. Second, what they don’t understand is that they are sending a signal to the Army. And that signal is: if you don’t want the US courts to let ‘em go – shoot ‘em.
If you put these prisoners on Mars, these damned Federal judges would claim jurisdiction. There is nothing more arrogant than a Federal judge.
I actually heard (and thought) it was great news.
remember, you pedants, attack the idea, not the person. actually, that’s probably the best way to win the war on terror.
I think everyone deserves a day in court. If these are the terrorists we think they are, then why aren’t they charged with anything? Who‘s delaying the prosecution? What prosecution? These guys could be absolute scum al Queda beetle-minded jihadists or unpopular guys whose neighbors needed a quick influx of cash. I say put them on trial and find out which is true. I bet most are scum and the legal way to decide that is pretty well-founded (and usually effective). Give them a trial or set them free.
I disagree. I trust in the integrity of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which are the more appropriate venue for such vetting of detainees.
A trial on the U.S. taxpayer? So let’s see, by being a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, who is captured rather than killed, and who is sent to Cuba to be held, you suddenly obtain all the rights and priviledges of U.S. citizenship? And we have to give you a trial, provide a free attorney and pay for the whole thing, appeals and all? Now there’s an idea. How long would that have taken in WWII with hundreds of thousands of POWS?
The military is subject to certain rules and codes of conduct. They have established a process, as Jeff mentioned, to determine whether any detainees might not actually be “enemy combatants”. That’s good enough.
They are not sent to Cuba, but to a military base of the United States that happens to be on Cuban soil. It is not Cuba.
And if we are going to hold them prisoner, shouldn’t there be a process to determine whether or not they are guilty of something? Maybe I’m just a naive idealist, but I think if we know that they are Taliban, it could be proven before something other than a tribunal.
In WWII, with hundreds of thousands of prisoners, we had a declaration of war from the House of Representatives, most of the prisoners wore uniforms which made them guilty, and those we did hold after the war were put on trial and often hanged. Those German saboteurs who landed in New Jersey were tried in a court, sentenced, and dealt with, too. Why is that impossible in this case?
If the guys are Taliban/al Queda/terrorist motherfuckers, it won’t be hard to prove it. If they aren’t, maybe they should be set free. And no one says we should give them an OJ trial each, but if cost is such a problem, how much will it cost to supply them with Froot Loops, orange jumpsuits, Depends, thong-wearing interrogators, razor wire cages, armed Marines, goggles and rubber gloves for the armed Marines, guard towers, copies of the Quran, rubber flip flops, sunscreen, air conditioning, and all the rest for the next forty or sixty years?
Yea! Froot Loops are expensive!
Even with bulk purchases at the PX, it adds up.
You can buy thong-wearing interrogators at the PX? In bulk? In Germany or here?
They’re really cheap in Cuba, but it’s hard to smuggle them over the fence.
Jon, you have your history completely wrong. The German saboteurs were not put before a civilian court – they were put before a military commission no different than the one this twit judge just declared “unconstitutional”. The US Supreme Court ruled then that the civilian courts had no business in the matter.
And jon, you don’t seem to understand the consequences of what happens if we can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people committed crimes that a Federal civilian court would recognize. They are then released. A stupid course of action.
I’m not impressed with the thought processes of either you or this twit judge.
It was a military court, but it was a court where a prosecutor made charges and a defender countered them. And then a judgment was made. Civilian or military, that’s how it should work. (These too should be handled by a military court, since I’m going to go out on a limb and assume classified military evidence will be involved.)
And if they aren’t proven guilty of something, they SHOULD be released. That’s how courts should work. And if we can’t prove they did something, why are we holding them? If they’re terrorists, prove it. Shit or get off the pot.
Every day in America and all over the civilized world, hundreds if not thousands of criminals go free because of insufficient evidence. It’s a problem, sure. But it’s a better problem to have than a government that holds someone indefinitely based on evidence that won’t stand up in a court of law.
Jon, your claim that if the detainees are not guilty of anything then they should be released is astonishing. Astonishing in its naivete.
First of all, what you cannot seem to understand is a simple concept. That enemy combatants can be detained even if they haven’t committed criminal acts per se.
Think about that simple concept for awhile until it sinks in. There is a simple test for whether or not you have thought about it long enough. When you reread your comment above and it seems silly, you are done thinking.
Jon
Number one, for background read this. Then try and understand the reasoning behing the Geneva Conventions that provide no protection for “illegal enemy combatants”… ie those that wear no uniform, hide among civilian populations and target civilian populations—The GC are only a way to offer incentives for people to abide by them. When one offers the GC protections regardless of whether or not one abides by them…WHY SHOULD ANYONE ABIDE BY THEM?
The judge is a maroon.
BTW jon
Every day in America and all over the civilized world, hundreds if not thousands of criminals go free because of insufficient evidence.
I process those cases and let me tell you, there is a big difference between not holding in custody a shoplifter of $10 worth of makeup from Walmart until the cops get the store videotape and letting go Omar who will rejoin the local jihadists and blow up the next US Marine he sees.
Get a grip, ok?
As I understand it, making armed resistance as an “irregular” is what makes someone an enemy combatant rather than a run-of-the-mill prisoner of war. If these guys were captured in the field without uniforms and such and so forth but with guns and such, they’re guilty of being enemy combatants and can be held. But there must be a hearing.
Unfortunately, not all of the prisoners were captured that way. Some were in the wrong place at the wrong time, which isn’t to say they weren’t evil Taliban/al Queda goons. But maybe they aren’t. Some were turned in by informants who were well paid. Couldn’t some of them have been influenced more by a desire to collect cash and lose a rival than a desire to rid their area of Muslim extremism? It doesn’t take that big a cynic to see the possibility.
So that’s why I say give those goons their day in court. If we’ve got nothing, we got nothing. If we’ve got something, we’ll use it. And setting them free should in most cases involve sending them back to Afghanistan or Iraq, which isn’t exactly a trip to Disneyland. I’m sure the democratically-elected governments have courts to deal with them.
Still not done thinking, I see.
Darleen, if we know for a fact that Omar is going to do that, then we have evidence. If we don’t have evidence, we don’t know that. And if we don’t have to provide evidence, none of us can know if we know that or not. Sorry about my slippy grip, but I have more faith in trials with evidence that in some of the actions of our government.
The long report you cited was torn a new asshole by the Supreme Court, which held that these guys do have some right to a trial. The report says that only rule of war violations may be tried, so that’s what there should be. And someday, they might actually get a trial and be able to state their cases. I don’t know why the government is dragging its feet so much, but I suspect that it’s to stall the inevitable embarrassment that’s going to come with even more releases of uncharged individuals. And more allegations of torture. And more mud in our eye.
If we’re going to fight terrorism on all fronts, we have to do more than warehouse those we catch.
Good idea, jon, your policy means that we won’t warehouse the ones we catch, we’ll just make sure we don’t catch ‘em alive.
The legal basis for the claim is the fact the US stated Guatanamo Bay was US soil. If it were not on US soil, there would have been little legal basis.
On the basis of a $500k-1m payout per detainee, look forward to a rather expensive payout. (And some very rich lawyers!)
It’s been over three years. Were they ever really going to put anyone in front of a military tribunal anyway? Most military lawyers appointed to defend detainees (but almost never allowed to see them) didn’t think so. David Hicks’ tribunal probably wouldn’t have started until 2007.
Capturing a bunch of people not high up enough on the food chain to be given the memo to book ass out of Afghanistan after 9-11, and then releasing them after squandering goodwill from even allies like the UK, seems to be a net loss in the war on terror.
Jon
Darleen, if we know for a fact that Omar is going to do that, then we have evidence.
And you’re aware, of course, that that scenario has already happened?
And I cited the “long report” you so blithely dismiss because it cites Quirin which you have already gotten wrong and the precedent of the powers of the CIC in dealing with illegal combatants, which lesser than SCOTUS judges are ascribing to themselves.
This ruling is not the final word.
Norbiz
I hate to put the Brits off their tea, good chaps they generally are, but they are >>>this<<< close to giving in completely to their very radical and large Islamist population.
Damn. Can’t we just talk about Froot Loops again?
Damn. Can’t we just talk about Froot Loops again?
…instead of to them?
It’s not sinking in Darleen. There’s two points here. Yes, the Supreme Court, in a blindingly stupid opinion, said that these folks have habeas corpus rights to access the courts. They did this on statutory, not constitutional grounds. Proving along the way, as Scalia points out, that the liberals on the bench cannot read something without adding words that aren’t there.
This judge expanded on that and pretty much gave them full U.S. citizen constitutional rights. That means a right to counsel, that means proof “beyond a reasonable” doubt for criminal offenses. It could mean Miranda warnings, formal rules of evidence, 4th amendment search and siezure requirements. Do you want soliders halting and asking for a warrant before searching the enemy?
I agree that the military should do its due dilligence and determine in some fair fashion whether these people are enemy combatants or not. But to what level of proof? A preponderance of the evidence, in whatever form, should be plenty to hold these people.
Exactly, Steve. It isn’t a criminal proceeding.
I’ve actually seen some argue that civilian court jurisdiction would violate at least the spirit of the Geneva Convention which was drafted with the understanding that respective militaries understood the conventions of war and would be more likely to apply them responsibly.
I think we can be hard on terror and provide trials. Some people don’t care about trials in these cases, but I still do. We’ll have to agree to disagree until the courts sort it out (and yes, Darleen, I know that all the details aren’t decided and the Supremes will get another crack at it very shortly).
And why do we serve them Froot Loops? Wouldn’t Kaboom! be more in tune with their worldview?