In the inevitable foofaraw that will follow today’s Supreme Court ruling about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, it would be worthwhile to remember what the case is and is not about.

It is not about whether the detainees are good guys or bad guys. The Nazis, to use the equally inevitable analogy, were bad guys, and they were still given their day in court at Nuremburg.

It is about the rule of law. One blogger summarizes the ruling thusly:

it appears to hold that Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights, that these rights can only be denied through a valid suspension of habeas rights (under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution), that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment Act were not an adequate substitute for habeas, and therefore Section 7 of the Military Commission Act is an unconstitutional suspension of the detainees’ habeas rights.

As one wiseacre cracked, “You give prisoners habeas rights, and soon everybody is going to want them.”

It also would be useful if folks understood something about the combatant status review tribunals that were used to determine who should and should not be in Guantanamo, and some of the Kafkaesque details of the case. This is from the Boumediene petition:

Petitioners are six natives of Algeria who emigrated to
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s. Five acquired
Bosnian citizenship, while the sixth (Mr. Lahmar) acquired
permanent residency. At the time of the brutal attacks of
September 11, 2001, each Petitioner was living peacefully
with his family in Bosnia.1 No Petitioner traveled to Afghani-
stan during the time that the United States has been engaged
in hostilities there. No Petitioner has waged war or committed
belligerent acts against the United States or its allies.
Petitioners were arrested by Bosnian police in October
2001, purportedly on suspicion of plotting to attack the U.S.
Embassy in Sarajevo. The Bosnian authorities had no evidence
for this charge. Rather, they acted under pressure
from U.S. officials, who threatened to cease diplomatic relations
with Bosnia if Petitioners were not arrested.

On January 17, 2002, the Supreme Court of the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, acting with the concurrence
of the Bosnian prosecutor, ordered Petitioners released because
a three-month international investigation (with collaboration
from the U.S. Embassy and Interpol) had failed to support
the charges on which Petitioners had been arrested.
On the same day, the Human Rights Chamber
for Bosnia and Herzegovina—a tribunal established under the
U.S.-brokered Dayton Peace Agreement and staffed by
judges from several European countries—issued an order
forbidding Petitioners’ removal from Bosnian territory.
. . .
Late that day, however, as Petitioners were being released
from the Central Prison in Sarajevo, Bosnian police—
acting again under pressure from U.S. officials and in defiance
of the Human Rights Chamber’s order—seized Petitioners and
delivered them to U.S. military personnel stationed in Bosnia.
The U.S. military transported Petitioners to Guantanamo,
where they have been held ever since. . . .

The Human Rights Chamber later determined that the
Bosnian government violated Bosnian law and European law
(directly applicable in Bosnia) by allowing the United States
to remove Petitioners to Guantanamo. Bosnia
has since repeatedly stated its willingness to accept Petitioners’
return. . . .

The CSRT procedures departed in numerous ways from
the basic requirements of due process. Most of the evidence
the government presented to the CSRT panel was classified
and, therefore, concealed from Petitioners under CSRT regulations.
The following colloquy from the
CSRT hearing of Petitioner Ait Idir (charged with “associat[
ing] with” an unnamed but “known al Qaeda operative”
(CAJA 493)) is illustrative (Pet. App. 83a-84a):

Detainee: Give me his name.
Tribunal President: I do not know.
Detainee: How can I respond to this?
Tribunal President: Did you know of anybody that
was a member of Al Qaida?
Detainee: No, no.
Tribunal President: I’m sorry, what was your response?
Detainee: No.
Tribunal President: No?
Detainee: No. This is something the interrogators
told me a long while ago. I asked the interrogators
to tell me who this person was. Then I could tell you
if I might have known this person, but not if this
person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a
friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me.
Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I
do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or
whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond
and defend myself against this accusation.
Tribunal President: We are asking you the questions
and we need you to respond to what is on the
unclassified summary.
Detainee: Why? Because these are accusations that
I can’t even answer. I am not able to answer them.
You tell me I am from Al Qaida, but I am not an Al
Qaida. I don’t have any proof to give you except to
ask you to catch Bin Laden and ask him if I am a
part of Al Qaida. To tell me that I thought, I’ll just
tell you that I did not. I don’t have proof regarding
this. What should be done is you should give me evidence
regarding these accusations because I am not
able to give you any evidence. I can just tell you no,
and that is it.

Petitioners were also prevented from offering documentary
or testimonial evidence unless the CSRT panel concluded
that it was “reasonably available” (Pet. App. 82a)—a standard
that, in practice, excluded much readily-accessible evidence.
For instance, Petitioner Boudella requested the January 2002
order of the Bosnian Supreme Court ordering him released
from custody. CAJA 576, 582. The CSRT panel concluded
that the decision was “not reasonably available” (id. 582),
even though the decision had been filed in the district court
and served on counsel for the government.5 Petitioner Nechla
sought testimony from his supervisor in the Bosnian office of
the Red Crescent. His CSRT panel held the witness not reasonably
available (see id. 520) even though counsel easily located
him by calling the Red Crescent number listed in the
Sarajevo telephone directory.

Yeah Chris...and I noticed 2 of the ones who voted for it were also appointed by republicans.

So I guess that means that republicans are more diverse when it comes to philosophy than democrats are?

That would assume being power hungry meglomaniacal, race baiting, back stabbing leftist cowards qualifies as a philosophy.

I also noticed 4 of the 5 overrated intellectuals who voted to allow local gov’t to steal land from private citizens in order to give it to developers were liberals.

But then you likely have no problem with that. The tax revenue from the new strip mall will go towards raises for already underworked and overpaid gov’t employees and political hacks, with a dribble making in down to the 12” deep potholes down the middle of Main St.

I did notice that 4 justices voted against the majority on this one. & I noticed that all 4 of them were appointed by Republican Presidents.

“Pretty soon we’ll be runnin’ naked through the grass eatin’ grubs and berries.”

You mean you don’t do that now? 

Why wait?  You don’t know what you’re missing, man. 

Just watch out for those thistles and stinging nettles.

They are against anything that will water down their voter base, which is the exact same reason the Republicans asked for the ID in the first place.

Politicians will do anything for a vote. Next thing you know a flagship American beer will be auctioned off to a buncha wussified people from Belgium who wouldn’t know a Bud if it splashed up the side of their sillyass heads.

Prolly use the proceeds to fund an election. Whadya’ think ?

Is there no honor left ? If they take our Budweiser, the huntin’ dog must come next. Pretty soon we’ll be runnin’ naked through the grass eatin’ grubs and berries.

Mark my words.

Only a matter of time.

Where is Obama from again?

Nothing new. I read an article a while back about democrat volunteers (it’s always volunteers) handing out leaflets in spanish telling people how to register to vote...at illegal immigrant rallies.

One of the leaflets actually had a map of the US and Mexico on it ....showing California and the Southwestern states as part of Mexico.

I wonder why democrats are so hell bent against having to show ID before you can vote????

“...the democrat party commits voter fraud (again...just like ACORN) in New Orleans.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/19754129.html”

New motto: 

“Baton Rouge - We’re Not Chicago, But We’re Working On It!”

I must be a contrarian’s contrarian. My first impulse is to agree with the president. Not sure if I am right on that.

I don’t think rule of law should be about anything that will not pass the common sense barrier.

Would certain people sitting in comfortable air-conditioned wood-paneled studies pass judgment on esoteric cultural taboos while ignoring real threats and real basic obstacles.

You answer as you like but my answer is yes.

Would certain people also abuse and misuse extra-ordinary abilities to capture, detain, torture, and kangaroo court detainees.

Yes.

Is this acceptable ?

We must make do with whatever tools we have to best deal with threats to security while best protecting innocent victims. The greater good must be preserved, whatever that is. It may not always agree with ivory tower textbook “rights” and “principles”.

By the way, this was yet another decision from our newly minted “house divided against itself” Supreme Court, where the liberals ganged up on the conservatives.

You creeps don’t want moderation and comprimise. You want harsh partyline ideology. Well, you got it. Enjoy.

And while we pout over Bosnians and ignore railroaded Marines...the democrat party commits voter fraud (again...just like ACORN) in New Orleans.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/19754129.html

BTW..The group responsible is the Muslim American Society...hired by democrats and a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist org based in Egypt.

It’s nice to see that the dems include all races and religions in their vote fraud schemes.

Move along folks...nothing to see here....

These folks likely feel like the Haditha Marines who were accused of murder, put on trail and publicly attacked by powerful politicians attached to the traitor backstabbers collaboraters lobby.

Sorry...I know...I repeat whats been all over the news lately. WAIT!!! I can’t find a single significant story in the MSM????

Ahhhh...F’em. Nobody ever won a Pulitzer sticking up for those hick a**holes anyway.

Let’s run important items about how loser mels are angry at boomers because they both want stuff and nobody will give it to them.

If we are going to be a democracy we should act like one. Democracy is more than just dropping a ballot in a box every four years. Thye fact that others do not play by our rules is irrelevant.
I agree with Bart’s analogy about the Nazis. They had their day in court with defense lawyers, the ability to call witnesses.
Everybody deserves a defense. While I am hardly a Christian, so called Christians should take the example of their own God and Bible. Didn’t God allow
Adam and Eve to present a defense ? Was not Cain allowed to speak before God about Abel ?  Even Sodom and Gomorrah had a defense counsel, Abraham.
Yet this so called Christian democracy wants to use the methods of summary judgement, the tactics of Soviets, Nazis and radical Islam , Southern white lynch mobs.
This debate makes me even more cynical than usual. It should not even be a debate. It should be a consensus.

Post Your Comments: