Legal battle on Guantanamo looms?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7128523.stm

The US Supreme Court is set to hold a hearing in two cases that are being seen as a legal showdown over the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
The cases challenge the removal by Congress of the "habeas corpus" right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard in a civilian court.
If the court rules in their favour, indefinite detention under military control could be declared unlawful.
The court's judges have ruled against the US government in two earlier cases.


whats your take

Grim Reaper - yes i did, it must be hell in guantanamo that they would consider doing it

Answer 1

Guantanamo needs to be closed. If there is evidence of a crime, try them in open court. If not, let them go. And they bang on about "freedom" like they have a monopoly on it. What a joke!

Answer 2

I think these people should be charged or released. It has been long enough. And, yes they do have a right to Habeas Corpus in my opinion. This has been very odd. I think the Supreme Court is going to finally rule for the last time that any person held on U.S. soil (whether a military base, Guam, or the 50 states) has a right to contest being held.

It is ironic to me, that the behemoth known as the US government cannot just try and win a prosecution against these alleged terrorists. The whole legal system and the sheer size of the US government, coupled with the aftermath of September 11th makes it hard for any person to get a fair trial. How hard can it be to prosecute these people?

Makes me wonder...

Answer 3

The case is being watched by many people the world over. These people are armed non- uniformed combatants in a war against the United States. They are not signees under the Geneva Convention. However they are being held on soil leased from the Cuban Government. Which makes it United States Territory. When they were captured they had no rights, so the question is do they obtain rights by virtue of being held on United States soil? There are really many answers to this question. I can think of two. One we could bring each of these men into the United States, and show them what our life is really like, and ask them if they would like to live the way we do, or return to what they had before. Two, we can close Guantanamo tomorrow. Hand the keys to the nearest Cuban, and tell Castro, "it's all yours buddy." and let him figure out what to do with these people. He could probably put them to work harvesting sugar cane.

Answer 4

As I understand it the previous judgements in George's favour were made by Federal Judges which in the US Judicial system is a whole different ball-game.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and are not generally wont to go against the Administration.

The US government class detainees at Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants" and maintain that this brings them under military jurisdiction. Any case against them, or appeal by them, is heard by a Military Tribunal.

It is unlikely that any decision that goes against Government thinking, will be made. If it is, it probably wouldn't be binding on the military.

I stand to be corrected: as a Brit. most of my understanding of US law comes from watching things like NCIS. When I was a kid it was Perry Mason.

Answer 5

I couldn't believe it when Congress voted to remove "habeas corpus". Even John McCain, who was once a prisoner of war. If we can't get the justice system to function properly WITH habeas corpus in the States (i.e. condemning people to death then finding out later through DNA tests they weren't guilty) then how the hell are these people in Guatananamo going to get a fair trial without it? Since there are a lot of Bush supporters and appointees, why would they go against him? Some of them made him president in the first place. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I hate being voiceless on this.

Answer 6

I have a feeling that internmenthas no legal obligation to take habeas corpus into account. Also I have to chortle that such an avowed Islamist as yourself has the nerve to attempt to take the moral high ground on this subject. How keen are the hard line Muslim theocracies that you support so strongly on habeas corpus? I thought that your beloved Iran strung people up
on cranes barely 24 hours after having been arrested. Still, come to think of it, I suppose habeas corpus hardly comes into it.
It's up to the West to sort out the legitimacy of its actions, not Muslim terrorist fellow travellers. You are a total hypocrite.

Answer 7

The men in Guantanamo are prisoners of war. Enemy combatants. As such they have no rights in the courts of the USA. Other bad people should take a lesson, and not mess with the US. If the government looses, we should give them all swim suits and tell them they are free to leave.

Answer 8

I doubt that the Court will go against the government on this case. Would be very surprised if they did. Will wait with interest

Answer 9

Guantanamo Bay is illegally occupied so the US can treat their captives in an illegal way therefore any civilian court remains irrelevant, the constitution hardly applies. Frankly, they don't give a damn.

Answer 10

Did you hear about the inmate/detainee who sharpened up his fingernail to a blade then tried to slice his own throat. According to the US authorities "He lost an impressive amount of blood"