Replies

Somehow this is a flawed decision..For example, the U.S. Courts never interfered during WW II concerning the German war prisoners, saying their detention satisfied the Geneva Conventions...For logistical reasons and evidence gathering reasons, that would have been impractical, as well as determining our troops motives in shooting at the enemy, and other factors that might be considered in a criminal case..But this is Military Law, many factors are different from criminal law..

It seems that Quantanamo was not the issue as even the government acknowledged that it is not US sovereign territoty, it is in Cuba...It seems that the justices felt a keen sense that the detainees have a right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Courts...That is unprecedented...This is war..They are the enemies, and they should not be allowed to use U.S. Courts to argue their guilt or innocence. It appears that this ruling is gravely flawed...It also appears that Congress and the White House need to do more work to set up a proper framework for the military tribunals and to determine where the tribunals shall be held..

and http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Boumediene/Al-Odah_v._Bush

1. “Somehow this is a flawed decision.”

Never in U.S. history has a court recognized a right to habeas corpus for enemy combatants captured abroad. For example, In WWII, German and Italian prisoners were imprisoned in the US with no habeas corpus rights. And in the case of German saboteurs captured after being put on a beach on Long Island by a German sub, they were tried in secret by a military tribunal under orders from Roosevelt, then executed (except for one who ratted out the others. He got life).

2. “It also appears that Congress and the White House need to do more work to set up a proper framework for the military tribunals and to determine where the tribunals shall be held.”

They did, and with help from Congress. In 2006 the Supreme court liberal majority decided military tribunals created by the executive to try prisoners should have congressional approval. So at Bush’s urging “The Military Commissions Act” was drafted and passed by congress. This law explicitly denies the right of terrorists captured abroad to file habeas corpus petitions. In this latest 5 to 4 ruling Justice Kennedy and company IGNORED this law that was passed by congress and signed by the president and out of thin air created a right to habeas corpus for war prisoners.

This is war..They are the enemies, and they should not be allowed to use U.S. Courts to argue their guilt or innocence That's the problem. It's not war. The president did not request nor did Congress declare war. That leaves us in the same limbo that we experienced in Vietnam - fighting without a declared war. Anyone more knowledgeable say yea or nay?