Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
As we have repeatedly said: “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree....
Rasul v Bush. (PDF file)
(Excerpt) Read more at a257.g.akamaitech.net ...
LOL. I read the decision and the dissents. I agree with the dissenters. You're a short sighted fellow. You can't see the forest or the trees. Adios.
But when it came down to an American citizen being arrested on American soil (which is the basis for this whole debate), is that person not allowed at least a hearing?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this ruling applies to most of the detainees at GITMO.
The scroll at the bottom of C-Span2 consistently said, "Government can hold U.S. citizens without charges or trial", and "Court added that detainees can challenge status in U.S. court". And someone reported that that meant they could have a hearing, not necessarily a trial and that we could still hold them regardless the outcome of the hearing.
BTW, CSPAN2 will be airing this again at 3:55 ET (and I think it was AM), so anyone interested can set your VCR's to record it.
[Section 9, Clause 2]:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
You have it all wrong. This ruling applies to non citizens located outside of American sovereignty. They get lawyers and court costs and you pay the bill.
As the SC argues Gitmo is by treaty effectively sovereign territory of the U.S., since no one else excercises sovereignty over Gitmo, and certainly not Cuba as the government laughably tried to argue. This was silly, and invites Castro to come in and reestablish the sovereignty which they assert that he has. You cannot have it both ways.
The case does not cover Iraq which may or may not present some other unique and different circumstances (yesterday). Today it is different still as Iraq is now sovereign territory of the Iraquis. The issue will be under whose jurisdiction the prisoners are now held.
Thanks, jwalsh07 seems not to have read that claus.
You really need to go read the opinion, you do.
We lease Gitmo. Gitmo is not sovereing territory.
Here is the WSJ take on the decision:
Terror and the Court
Despite mixed rulings, a victory for the executive.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The instant reading of yesterday's Supreme Court rulings on terror suspects is that they were, as the Associated Press asserted, "a setback to the Bush Administration's war against terrorism." After reading the opinions, we'd say it's more accurate to call them a modest but important victory for the Presidency.
The Court's three rulings will surely complicate U.S. detention policy, at least at the margins. But at the same time they uphold the longstanding and proper deference that the Supreme Court has shown throughout its history to the executive branch on national security, especially in wartime. That includes decisions on how to define and handle a dangerous enemy. For a change, this particular Court actually restrained itself.
Most important, the Court upheld the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens. That's the key finding of Hamdi, and the implicit basis of Padilla, which the Court threw back to the lower courts on jurisdictional grounds.
It's true that in its Guantanamo ruling--Rasul v. Bush--the Court has opened the door to a flood of litigation by ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreigners detained as terrorists can challenge their treatment in the federal courts. This pretty much guarantees that the 600 or so Guantanamo detainees will bring 600 or so habeas corpus cases--perhaps in 600 or so different courtrooms, with 600 or so different judges demanding 600 or so different standards of what evidence constitutes a threat to the United States. Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent shreds the majority's messy reasoning.
But the solution here is for Congress to step in with legislation consolidating all of the Gitmo cases in a single court. Arlington, Virginia would be a good choice, as that's where the detainees' ultimate warder, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is located. It also has the advantage of being located in the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already examined these issues in a serious way.
At the same time, however, yesterday's Hamdi decision suggests that the courts must give considerable deference to the executive in handling these habeas petitions. While Hamdi concerned a U.S. citizen-detainee, it isn't likely that the non-citizens at Gitmo can expect more favorable treatment. And anyone who reads Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's plurality opinion can only conclude that Yaser Esam Hamdi--or anyone else--is unlikely to be sprung from detention anytime soon.
Yes, Justice O'Connor wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." But she also outlined the extraordinary deference that must be given the executive branch.
"The Constitution would not be offended," she wrote, "by a presumption in favor of the Government's evidence, so long as that presumption remained a rebuttable one and fair opportunity for rebuttal were provided." And "once the Government puts forward credible evidence that the habeas petitioner meets the enemy-combatant criteria, the onus could shift to the petitioner to rebut that evidence with more persuasive evidence."
In short, the burden is on the petitioner in these cases to prove that the government's designation is wrong. Just to be sure the ACLU gets the point, Justice O'Connor added that "the full protections that accompany challenges to detentions in other settings may prove unworkable and inappropriate in the enemy-combatant setting."
Even more striking, Justice O'Connor all but invited the Administration to set up a military court to hear Hamdi's plea. That suggestion goes a bridge farther than even President Bush has dared. His controversial 2001 order establishing military tribunals to try enemy combatants specifically excluded U.S. citizens even though there is ample legal precedent for their use. The Court's ruling is also an implicit suggestion that the military is capable of adequately reviewing challenges brought by the Gitmo prisoners.
All in all, the Court stepped away from the chaos of making judges the arbiters of American security. That's a welcome victory for the Presidency, no matter who wins in November.
Habeas Corpus can be suspended. Is that your opinion and the opinion of the SC ruling?
The goverment of Cuba has no control over any proceedings on Gitmo. We have exclusive jurisdiction. As the SC argues that is sovereignty in fact as opposed to some sort of word game that you are trying to play.
Oops - my last was directed at jwalsh07
“the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the [leased areas],” Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations, Feb. 23, 1903,
You do understand that the lease agreement between Cuba and the USA is the controlling legal document vis a vis GITMO?
What part of the above quote do you have the most rouble understanding?
Or is it just that you "feel" that the legal document is of no consequence when you "feel" it is not conducive to your erroneoeus argument?
You're devolving into lunacy. You are the Constitutional expert who stated that "the writ can not be suspended".
Not me, you. Comprende'?
in the even of invasion or public rebellion per the constitution. Under the circumstances, 9/11 being long long over, and there being little evidence of a public uprising, I think that the SC has decided that it is time to begin to dispose of the detainees through some sort of process. As eva points out in the WSJ quote above, that can be through military tribunals.
We took over a hundred thousand POW's in Gulf War 1. Think about the potential market for American ambulance chasers and hate America firsters.
The controlling legal document over the powers of the Congress to make laws is the U.S. constitution. The Constitution is not suspended because of a contract made with a former government of Cuba.
Which do you think should apply in Gitmo - the rights and powers under the U.S. constitution or the rights and powers under the constitution - if there is such a thing - of the communist government of Cuba. I know - you think that the place should run lawless, but that is not a choice that either I, or the US supreme court (more importantly) would wish to recognize.
That seems to be the biggest danger in the ruling, tax payer financed lawyers.
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.