Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Decision on Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo - Legal Discussion
United States Supreme Court ^ | June 28, 2004 | United States Supreme Court Justices

Posted on 06/28/2004 8:21:16 AM PDT by Thud

This is the thread for a legal oriented discussion of Rasul v. Bush, which may be the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. The link is to an Adobe Acrobat reader version of the ruling's text. I'm a lawyer and will analyze this opinion, and its implications, later today after studying it more carefully.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: detainees; enemeycombatant; enemycombatants; gitmo; guantanamo; justice; scotus; supremecourt; terror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
I'd appreciate it if someone would post either a link to an HTML version of the decision, or its whole text, in this thread.
1 posted on 06/28/2004 8:21:16 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Care to partake?


2 posted on 06/28/2004 8:22:18 AM PDT by Huck (Be nice to chubby rodents. You know, woodchucks, guinea pigs, beavers, marmots, porcupines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck; holdonnow

We should try and see what Mark Levin thinks about this.


3 posted on 06/28/2004 8:27:54 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

I'd really like to see your thinking on this.


4 posted on 06/28/2004 8:32:12 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Here's a link to the decision:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-334.pdf

While the WH did not get everything it wanted, the government is still allowed to detain, but the detainees can contest the detention or their treatment.


5 posted on 06/28/2004 8:36:27 AM PDT by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
So the question is whether the statute in question specifically excludes aliens? I'd have to read it.

My gut reaction is that if the statute is silent then the courts are doing us a great disservice by extending the habeas corpus privileges to non-citizens.

Maybe I can find the decision on Westlaw (I've become spoiled by the direct links to statues and cases cited)

6 posted on 06/28/2004 8:37:04 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Can you'all please address the issue of whether it makes a difference WHERE the terrorists are captured? Seems to me that it ought to make an enormous difference whether they were arrested here in the U.S. or captured on a foreign battlefield. Thanks.


7 posted on 06/28/2004 8:40:14 AM PDT by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinetop
My take is that SCOTUS essentially gave terrorists, intent on killing Americans,
constitutional rights and priveleges.
8 posted on 06/28/2004 8:40:31 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci

You're assuming everyone held at Gitmo is guilty.

Based on the fairly large number released, that's unlikely.


9 posted on 06/28/2004 8:45:38 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: walden
Can you'all please address the issue of whether it makes a difference WHERE the terrorists are captured?

Basically, Rasul v. Bush is more about where the people are held following capture, rather than where they are actually captured.

And the USSC - based on a prior ruling - has ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear aliens habeas corpus claims when those aliens are being held in territory that the U.S. has control over (like Gitmo).

10 posted on 06/28/2004 8:48:45 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I trust the military to make battlefield decisions, not liberal judges.


11 posted on 06/28/2004 8:51:10 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Scalia's dissent soves a rod up the liberals' a$$holes.


12 posted on 06/28/2004 8:51:52 AM PDT by tort_feasor ( anti-Semitism is not a lifestyle choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Not necessarily ... remember, war is not a law enforcement exercise. You capture enemy combatants, remove them from the field of combat, and determine if they have any intelligence value. Once drained, if they are not major players and there are no war-crime level charges to be made, you either hold them in camps until the end of hostilities (a la Stalag-17) or release them. In the current asymmetrical warfare scenario the former is not really feasible so you do a slow catch-and-release. Hopefully, you do some psyops work and hint that some of the released ones are "turned" so that they will never be trusted again.
13 posted on 06/28/2004 8:52:31 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911-2004))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tort_feasor
Scalia's dissent soves a rod up the liberals' a$$holes.

He always does.

14 posted on 06/28/2004 8:53:24 AM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thud
It doesn't matter to me what the Supreme Court says. They are a pack of useless functions anyway. Supposed to interpret law not make new ones.

Best thing we could do is transfer all the prisoners to Afghanistan and let them take care of the murders.
15 posted on 06/28/2004 8:54:07 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Here is the important part:

"STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined."

The three most conservative judges were against it. The five most liberal judges were for it. Anytime the split is that clear, I tend to believe that it was a bad decision.


16 posted on 06/28/2004 8:54:50 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Well, the court distinguished Eisentrager and noted that in this case, none of the detainees were citizens or nationals of a country with which we were at war and also the court relied upon the fact that the US has exclusive control over Guantanamo pursuant to the lease and treaty with Cuba.

The Court rejected respondent's claim that the detainees lacked litigation privileges, noting that historically nonresident aliens have had such privileges in US courts.

In short, the Court distinguished it's earlier reasoning in Eisentrager in order to reach this decision. What always fascinates me about the Court is its easy way with stare decisis. Those footprints in concrete are never very permanent...


17 posted on 06/28/2004 8:55:36 AM PDT by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

to the contrary, the few which are released are typically found again, back on the battlefield.


18 posted on 06/28/2004 8:55:37 AM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pinetop

Scary. It is sometimes no more than an intellectual exercise; how can the court get the result it wants and still have the veneer of jurisprudence.


19 posted on 06/28/2004 9:01:05 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It's an obnoxious decision. It drips with guile by stating that the detainees are not members of a country with which we are at war. By that logic, if we capture Bin Laden we will have to hold all sorts of hearings about the legality of his detention and his treatment.


20 posted on 06/28/2004 9:05:44 AM PDT by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson