Two Takes: The Supreme Court Made a Mistake in 'Boumediene'

Nevada Knight

I have no idea what a "repeat-a-con" is, though I will conjecture that it is someone who listens to conservative radio and regurgitates their message. I do not fall in that category--I listen to Howard Stern, which probably does not serve me well or my service, but at least he makes me laugh. However, you have robbed me of my ignorance that my clever point about the miranda ruling is all over the airwaves. And here I thought I was being original! Also, you can believe it is an ignorant point, but all I say is, why stop at HC?

I appreciate your concerns about your liberty; please do not lose sleep over it. Bush and co. and Congress will not suspend HC--which was what the court has been trying to push the admin to do if they want to try these guys in secret and w/o the rights you refer to.

But, like I said, it is moot--the court has ruled, and that is that. We disagree with the ruling. Oh well--too bad, it happens sometimes. I happen to believe the Supreme Court should play a small role in the military, which is under the powers of our executive branch. I also happen to believe that terrorists are not protected bc they have not signed the treaty as an organization, so why enjoy the benefits. But that is just my opinion--the supreme court has felt differently and probably agrees with you.

I'm just glad to see a Clinton judge approved a military trial for OBLs driver. Lets try this guy, the other jerks down there and move on as a country!

you insult me

WTF; why do you use Khalid Sheik M., as the example? How many hundreds of humans have been tortured in Guantanamo Bay? How many were innocent? Why do you go for the ignorant conservative rant about Miranda? Even Justice Rehnquist stood firm on that count in the end.

No, I do not believe that convicted terrorists should go free because of the Bush tyranny, but there must be recourse. As I mentioned earlier, it is my right to habeas corpus which has been stolen. I am quite willing to accept a remedy of any and all Bush Administration members, including the President and Vice President, who were a part of the theft of my liberty be publicly chastised, and spend the rest of their lives in shame. That is appropriate justice on my account.

Do not be a fool repeat-a-con, it does not serve you, or your military service. I am not alone; just a bit more vocal than most. Do not insult me with your misplaced visions of my political view. I am one old SOB of a Conservative, and I stand as a Friend of Liberty. Which side are you on?

short-to the point

@ WTF - My read:

US Const. Article VI; Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Geneva Conv. Relative to POWs are the Supreme Law of the Land. The GenvConv, Art 4A defines 6 separate classes of POWs. Art. 4B defines an additional 2 classes to be treated as POWs. Art. 5, par 2, in its entirety states: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Mr. Bush's determination IS NOT a "competent tribunal". The GenConv cannot be abrogated once hostilities have commenced. The relevant was Sept. 11, 2001. The determination that defined the detainees as "unlawful combatants" is in violation of "The Supreme Law of The Land". It is A Tyranny.

Straight-up bro, from a long-ago vet. My Read, our oath:

Against All Enemies; Foreign And Domestic.

whatever!

A Knight of NV: I appreciate your intelligent and lucid counterargument. I first want to say I do not wear blinders--I dislike Bush and the fact that as an army officer he sent me to Iraq for some reason or the other has cemented this fact. However, I do not let my anger at his poor decisions cloud my political judgement. If you read Michael Kinsely in time this week, he admits that halfway through his column--that most liberals are so Anti-Bush they fight any position the man has. That was the point I was trying to make. Oh well.

As for your lecture on Ha corpus and

However, there is legal precedent in which foreign war "criminals" as we can call them because we dispute POW/terrorist labels, do not enjoy the same rights that we as AMERICANS enjoy and are entitled to. In the supreme court case Johnson v Eisentrager, the justices found US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals. In their opinion, they state

"We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."

But, whatever. Its moot; the supreme court has made its ruling and as Americans, we dont have to agree on it. I certainly don't. You clearly do. And there we have it.

As far as using flippancy in describing them as "terrorists" in a flippant manner, I certainly intended more insult and degradation towards those murderers and crazies at gitmo than the label terrorist implies. However, I was trying to play nice.

Also, since you were sleeping when it happened, the US government DOES provide the names and charges of those held at Gitmo. Go look it up on google or something. I read them on washingtonpost.com two years ago.

ps Dont worry Knight. The Supreme court saw it your way--with any luck on yourside, maybe you'll be on a jury and let someone like KSH go because he was not read his Miranda rights.

not sympathy for terrorists

WTF of NC: I would submit that it is you who are burdened with ":Bush blinders". How could an equal application of justice be construed as "sympathy". You allege they are terrorists. Was I sleeping through the public presentment of charges against them and their open trial which ended with a jury of 12 dutifully sworn American citizens finding them guilty as charged?

These persons were stripped of the Geneva Conventions protections by Presidential fiat alone, which defined them as "unlawful combatants". Is this not evidence that the government detains these humans as criminal actors? Do not the phrases "NO PERSON" and "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS" indicate universality? Without habeas corpus, there can be no liberty. It is not 'terrorists" that are being defended, as you so flippantly describe it; it is instead: The Dreamtime America.

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795

Wow

A lot of the individuals posting seem way too symapthetic towards the terrorists and very anti-government. I dont blame most people for being anti-govt, but pro-terrorist?

Please take the anti-Bush blinders off for a minute and understand that the overwhelming majority of the individuals in Gitmo are terrorists who hate America and would not hesitate to decapitate most of the people posting on this site simply for being a westerner. In fact, of the prisoners we have allowed to leave Gitmo, 39 of them have been killed fighting US troops or blowing themselves up in crowded markets in Iraq. Many more are probably daydreaming of obtaining a nuke and bringing it to the US, while most of you nash your teeth at the injustices paid towards them.

Also, the combatants/terrorists in Gitmo are NOT POWS. The Geneva convention and rules of war state the difference between POWs and Al-Qaeda/murderers. They certainly do not deserve the rights of the citizens they so desperately want to kill.

War on Terror

Re: "Boumediene has removed the military from the habeas corpus process altogether. Few will doubt we are a nation at war, and the military is detaining and adjudicating, through the military commissions, those unlawful combatants accused of war crimes. "

Whatg do you mean "few will doubt?" I doubt. The Supreme Court doubts. A lot of Americans doubt very much in the context that you use the term, that we are at war, in the sense of a "war on terror."

We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people we capture in those wars are POWs, and as long as they are treated as POWS, the Supreme Court will not get involved. BUT, if you argue that the "war on terror" gives the US president the right to arrest, say, a Frenchman in Paris and bring him to Guantanamo and claim that he is a terrorist, and say that he cannot have habeas corpus, but only be handled by a military commission, then I say that there is no such "war on terror" allowing that.

That is too much power for a president, especially when it is shown that this president gets things right only about one in three times. And, gee, I wouldn't want to give that kind of power to Obama either. What we need is what the constitution grants: independent courts who will say "this guy is not really a terrorist no matter what the president says."

Rights to more than just citizens

Re: Habeas Corpus is not a natural right, it is a right that civilized nations choose to give their citizens. Eh?

We, and the British, and most likely every country that has habeas corpus as a right routinely grants that right to non-citizens. George, a Frenchman, is accused of the murder of James in New York City. George naturally has all the rights of anyone else in NYC, including Habeas Corpus.

What you probably mean is that until now The US government has never arrested a Frenchman in, say, Paris, and brought him to an area controlled by the US government and then claimed that the US government has the right to hold him forever without trial. (Subsequently that was changed to special courts in Guantanamo, but the Bus administration really at one time claimed the right to pick up just anyone, anywhere, and hold him or her forever.

Well, judging by the Bush administration record, it is likely that three out of five accused terrorists are merely poor jerks with the same last names as real terrorists. If the Bush administration had not of claimed that it has the right to hold people forever, adn if it had not had such a bad track record in arresting real terrorists and not arresting innocent people, then perhaps the old precedent that non-Citizens outside the USA have no habeas corpus rights. But that wasn't the case.

But, big deal, if these guys are really terrorists, then simply prove the fact. Or, if not, return them to where they were picked up. (Naturally, if our dear government still thinks they are terrorists, they have the right to continue to keep watching them, bugging their phones, etc.)

Habeas Corpus is a Natural Right.

How would you like to be acussed of committing a crime that you did not commit? And on top of that, how would you like to have no legal say or representation of what you did not do?

If you give a man or a group of men the power to withhold and discriminate against people with no consequences, you have thrown away everything that our founding fathers set up in our constitution.

Also, the misconseption that these "convicts" were found "on the battlefield" is clearly wrong. The idea by the gorvernment of these men being captured with a gun in their hands is just a wrongfully used justification to give support to their cause.

I'm personally glad the Supreme Court finally saw through the murky waters of this administration. Finally someone had the "huevos" to do it.

there are just two paths

@ ma of LA;

It is a great mistake to believe that The Constitution defines the people's rights. The Constitution describes the framework and limitations for the legitimate actions of the state. The moment that the detainees were stripped of Geneva Convention protections, defined as "unlawful combatants" by presidential fiat, they were being held as criminal actors, not as Prisoners of War. Either the detainees are afforded the protections of The Geneva Conventions, or the state must assure they are afforded due process of law before it can rightfully strip away life, liberty and/or property. There is no third way.

The persons who have chosen to take this Nation down this path are not the Supreme Court Justices. It is instead the Bush Administration, which has asserted a right of executive tyranny. The President does not exist without the strictures of the only document which is the source of his powers' legitimate sceptering. He is not above the law.

Take these detainees into an open court, secure righteous convictions against them in a trial that adhered to due process of law, and then: Hang 'Em High.

Anything less is an act of obscenity victimizing America's soul.