(3-judge panel, 9th Circuit) Rules ALL GITMO detainees must have access to an attorney

Fox

[Dog]

AP via Fox news alert..

Lord help us from the judges..

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't think your analogy is correct. Cases involving regulatory agencies, for example, are handled by the DC Circuit.

[templar]

We have become the one thing the Founding Fathers feared most: An unaccountable judicial oligarchy.

They are not unaccountable. They can be impeached.

[Turin_Turambar]

But note the part about venue, which is the key. Even if there is jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit jumps through hoops to keep the case in CA, rather than in the E.D. of Virginia, where it would more properly be heard, based on the defendant (the DOD). The reasoning here is poor, and obviously political, because they know that the EDVA and the Fourth Circuit wouldn't stand for nonsense, i.e., that an old leftist married to the head of the Cal. ACLU can suddenly revise century old treaties just to be a pain in the a** to a Republican administration.

[jwalsh07]

Form the opening of the opinion. Judge Rhineland cites the New York Times as justification for his intervention.

1 For convenience, we sometimes refer to Guantanamo Naval Base as "Guantanamo" and sometimes simply as "the Base."
2 Although there is a dearth of official reports as to the conditions at Guantanamo, there have been a number of newspaper stories reporting on the subject, including interviews with Afghani and Pakistani citizens released without the filing of charges. Some of the prisoners released have said that the uncertainty of their fate, combined with linguistic isolation from others with whom they could communicate, confinement in very small cells, little protection from the elements, and being allowed only one one-minute shower per week led a number of detainees to attempt suicide multiple times. See Carlotta Gall & Neil A. Lewis, Threats and Responses: Captives; Tales of Despair from Guantanamo, N. Y. TIMES, June 17, 2003, at A1; see also Neil A. Lewis, Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention in Guantanamo, N. Y. TIMES, Oct. 10, 2003, at A1 (reporting that in 18 months, 21 detainees have made 32 suicide attempts, a high incidence which human rights groups attribute to the uncertainty of their situation).

Of course there have been numerous trips to GITMO by Congresscritters and others but why would Rhineland inquire of them when he can ring Neil Lewis?

[lepton]

However, the US government isn't outside the reach of the Constitution - regardless of where a particular facility is - because the government has no existence except through the Constitution.

The Executive branch of the federal government is granted authority to manage foreign affairs by the Constitution. The only limitation on that are the treaties ratified by the Senate.

[You Dirty Rats]

Which Constitution are you reading?

Try looking at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, for example.

Also, I would be interested to know which portion of Article II grants "authority to manage foreign affairs".

[Diogenesis]

The Judicial Branch has submitted to Jayson Blair and the endless lies of the New York Times.

[Turin_Turambar]

I think this is beside the point, since they would have to be at war with us to act in this manner. There is no threat to our citizens under int'l law.
The people at Gitmo are either (1) POWs in an ongoing conflict, (2) unlawful combatants in an ongoing conflict, (3) POWs after war, (4) same as (2) but after war. We certainly were at war with the Taliban, and probably still are. Unless there is an issue about their status as POWs, there isn't even a legal question FOR a trial, so a trial is pointless. A real POW is not assumed by anyone to have done anything wrong. Moreover, even those classified as unlawful combatants get practically the same treatment. This was war, and unlike Padilla, they were captured in a combat zone; it is military matter, unless Congress acts.

[jwalsh07]

The judiciary is a joke. I know I'm out on a limb by myself but I think the federal courts have gotten way out of hand. The Second Circuit ignored the Quirin precedent and the Ninth Circuit ignored the Johnson precedent as regards sovereignty. They do what they want when they want and they could give two craps about precedent, the constitution or American mores. European mores on the other hand plays a large part in their opinions. Go figure.

[Stopislamnow]

Chum heavily beforehand.

[4CJ]

The ruling is enough to gag a maggot.

[hankbrown]

I don't think your analogy is correct. Cases involving regulatory agencies, for example, are handled by the DC Circuit.

That is because most federal statutes require regulatory agency cases to be heard in DC. No federal statute is available in this case to dictate where case must be brought.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

With the Judiciary such as it is, maybe it is time we Americans just ignored the ignoble SOBs. The Courts can only have such powers that WE allow them. Time to remind these black robed thugs of that fact!

[FairOpinion]

At first I thought it just HAD to be a joke!

But the 9th Circus is the joke!

Will they take personal responsibility, if, as a result of access to attorney, the terrorists are able to communicate to other terrorists, and/or won't provide any more intel, and as ultimate result thousands of innocents may die?

[ClintonBeGone]

Can't imagine how the 9th circus has jurisdiction.

[WOSG]

It wasn't the 9th Circus... they would have given the GITMO detainees the right to vote. Pell Grants, even.

Not to mention driver's licenses.

[Right Wing Professor]

The solution is obvious. The judges of the 9th circuit court of appeals are clearly acting on behalf of a terrorist organization. Declare 'em unlawful combatants, and send 'em to Gitmo.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Sorry,(judge muggers)You have NO AUTHORITY over the military nor beyond America's borders.Besides,just who are you going to get to enforce your bogus ruling?

[lepton]

Which Constitution are you reading?

Same one you cited.

Try looking at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, for example.

Yep...Congress determines IF war is declared, issues letters of marque, determines how seized items are dispossesed, code of discipline for members of the military.

The closest to being contrary to what I said is "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; " is what happens here, not there.

Also, I would be interested to know which portion of Article II grants "authority to manage foreign affairs".

I'll concede my shorthand was over-broad here, however:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,...

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...

...he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;...

The Legislature (Congress) passes laws - within its authorizations and not violating the Constitutionally directed Executive powers - and the Executive manages the details of foreign affairs. Congress may not run the details of the military's actions (such that it can be said to be "commanding"), nor receive Ambassadors, nor negotiate Treaties.

Regardless - and dealing with the issue at hand - the Federal Government is the only agent authorized to deal with foreign powers on behalf the nation - and it is authorized. It is also authorized to deal with foreign individuals on behalf the nation. Furthermore, there are pretty clear lines drawn between foreign locations, territories, and domestic locations - and what powers are given.

[MEG33]

Thanks for the cartoons.The 9th Circuit provides great material.