Cornyn Gets It Right On The SCOTUS "Gitmo" Decision
By haystack Posted in John Cornyn | scotus | The Courts | What constitution? — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The US Supreme Court today gave rights to non-citizens..you know, the ones killing and trying to kill Americans? yeah-those non-citizens.
The Supreme Court, for the third time, rejected President Bush's policy for holding and trying foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ruled today these men have a right to seek their freedom in a hearing before a federal judge.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court struck down as unconstitutional an administration-backed law that barred the detainees from going to court. The right to habeas corpus is fundamental to American law and cannot be suspended except in times of national emergency, the majority said.
Well, the long war on terrorism strikes me as such an occasion, but let's pretend it doesn't make muster to be deemed "national emergency." Fine.
Our constitution is for Americans...not every human being (including the animals that kill themselves and their women and children in the name of "Allah") that walks the planet. And besides, the role of the Supremes is to enforce the law...including the ones Congress passes and the President signs. Apparently, they think these two recently passed laws violate the Constitution somehow. I disagree...and, Texas' own Senator John Cornyn is apparently troubled by this as well:
Upon initial review, the Supreme Court’s ruling is both troubling and disappointing. A slim, 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ignored the informed wartime policy choices of both elected branches of the federal government. In 2006, 65 Senators—Democrats and Republicans alike—approved a carefully crafted law that provided these detainees a fair process consistent with America’s critical national security needs.
But, today the Supreme Court ignored this law and the informed expertise of the President and Congress in matters of national security—and gave itself a blank check to assume control of wartime detainee policy. This is unacceptable and unprecedented.
The history of this debate and litigation concerning the rights of suspected terrorists is instructive. The Supreme Court previously said that unilateral executive decision-making was not appropriate when it came to determinations of who is and is not an alien enemy combatant—even in wartime. Pursuant to the Court’s directive, Congress debated and crafted a detention review process that included review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—a court many call “the second highest court in the land.” This law, crafted specifically to meet the Court’s previously stated requirements, was invalidated today. The Supreme Court has moved the goalposts once again.
Ultimately, Congress is now remanded to write yet ANOTHER new law that will hopefully pass the SCOTUS critique...God knows that will take another two years...but at least Cornyn and others see this as a fight not over. Where to go from here, Senator?
But the Supreme Court is not the final word. Congress should revisit America’s terrorist detention policies with additional legislation. This ruling by a very slim majority of the Court represents a dangerous and irresponsible precedent that will greatly burden our military and put our national security at risk.
Agreed, sir.
Guess what the President had to say about the decision?
President Bush says he strongly disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling that foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay have the right to go to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detentions.
In a news conference today in Rome, Bush said that the 5-4 decision represented "a deeply divided court." He added that the justices who voted against the decision have expressed "their serious concerns about U.S. national security."
The president also says the administration will study the ruling to determine if "additional legislation might be appropriate" to protect the American people.
You KNOW there will be new legislation...sheesh-
McCain:
Republican John McCain told reporters in Boston that he continues to support closing the detention facility, but is concerned about a ruling that gives habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants who are not US citizens.Obama:
Democrat Barack Obama, who also wants to close Guantanamo, issued a statement that says in part, "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."
huh...Obama (Lawyer) supports a boon to the lawyer industry with appeals upon appeals upon appeals...through the circuits and up to SCOTUS all in the name of "re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law."
So, the old guy cares about OUR people and their rights...the rock star from Illinois cares about what people think of us...
Go figure. At least Cornyn is on the same planet as the rest of us.
AMEN. Let this decision backfire -- both in the court of public opinion AND the battlefield.
Instead of bringing the terrorists to Gitmo, shoot 'em on the battlefield, or else let them rot in jails in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
And let a few of these dudes have their day in court, with a Judge Ito and an ACLU attorney. Let the American people see it play out. The Obamas of the world might be singing a different tune after that.
I am certain that our Northern Alliance allies would be glad to take on this responsibility.
This decision will certainly discourage the collection of prisoners, but then again no soldier wants to have to face the same enemy a second time.
"The US Supreme Court today gave rights to non-citizens..you know, the ones killing and trying to kill Americans? yeah-those non-citizens."
So you are one who believes in freedom, but only freedom for the few? What do they call that? Tyranny? Oppression? I think it is in fact that antithesis of freedom.
The Constitution grants rights, and restricts the actions of our government. Non-citizens have rights under our law, even if you hate rights its still fact, and guess what the courts agree with me.
next time you want to talk about something with such malice, try to have a basic understanding of it.
And
And by the way you stop buying into propaganda. You look like a complete fool when you spew that people in Gitmo. are killing Americans. Around 70% of the people who were randomly forced into Gitmo. by the American government have already been proven to have committed not a single crime or have a single connection to any anti-American or an terrorists group. Even our own governments and CIA admits that a wide majority of people in Gitmo. are innocent.
Only what is it 4 people out of the near 1,000 who have been in Gitmo. have been charged with anything.
Terrorists aren't just in Gitmo. innocent people are.
I take it you also disagree with innocent till proven guilty, looks like you want us to digress back to the 11th century.
"Well, the long war on terrorism strikes me as such an occasion, but let's pretend it doesn't make muster to be deemed "national emergency.""
The law says that it can be suspended under rebellion or invasion, looks like it can't be suspended lawfully at the moment.
And yes how horrible for someone running for president to desire that we have rights, terrible indeed.
Other countries around the world do not bestow Americans any rights within their Constitutions...we are subjected to their laws when we are there. Our laws, twice established through Congressional approval and Presidential signatures, have established Gitmo as the holding place for these people and have established the hearings process to which they are entitled and will be subjected. They have the rights we extended them to stand up to the charges filed against them...pay attention.
As for the rest of your hand-wringing comment, you lost us at "around 70% were randomly forced in to Gitmo"
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. They were arrested because of where they were and what they were doing...things related to committing terrorist acts, conspiring to commit terrorist acts, supporting terrorist acts, killing or trying to kill Americans (and others, by the way), and generally being really bad people. There are local jails where people could be detained-these Gitmo people are specifically there because they are particularly bad actors.
Your last sentence is a joke.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
If these guys are so bad, which they are, why should it be so hard to come up with a charge on them? That's what Habeas Corpus is, "a reason for holding".
You are charged with "Conspiring agsinst the United States"
Done. Piece of cake.
Habeas Corpus and Rule of Law intact.
I thought we conservatives were the strict protectors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
When did it become so Liberal to uphold the Constitution.
Flame away
It is about extending constitutional rights to illegal enemy combatants that concerns us.
By the way when you said "We conservatives" I got this funny feeling in my stomach that your are not conservative...and the fact that you have only been a member for 15 mins makes me wonder what your real purpose here is.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Two points:
1.) How is it so hard to bring charges against these guys who are obvisously bad dudes? If we have good reasons for holding them then what's the big deal? Or is this now in CYA mode? (Cover Your Ass)
2.) The hold up on this is that it will bring hundreds of Habeas Corpus suits against the military for illegal detention. If we had done it with Habeas Corpus in the first place, would there be the back log? Meaning, didn't we sow the seeds for this by breaking the law to begin with?
I am all for detaineeing terrorists, but if we create two more terrorists by illegally detaineeing some "nobody" with two angry sons then what good is that?
Or is it "kill all the towel heads and let god sort'em out"?
#1 - why should we? Illegal combatants on battlefields on foreign soil are not even entitled to Geneva Convention treatment (which also does NOT include habeas corpus)
#2 - we didn't BREAK the law to begin with.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Thanks for spelling it out and making our site more vulgar.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
jurisdiction thereof of the U.S.. The Jihad 5 on the SCOTUS that assaulted our Constitution were supposed to be the "strict protectors" of same. They have NO right to any constitutional protections save basic human rights. I as a blue collar worker would love to debate you whoever you are on constitutional law, but it will have to wait till this evening as I am busy trying to raise my contribution to the future generation of America who himself could probably put you to shame for being such an impossible curmudgeon who took the short bus to school when learning basic constitutional law. Whew! I'm glad I got that off my chest!
Tim Schieferecke
'Habeas corpus' (IPA: /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body)[1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on their behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The US Congress wrote two laws allowing for HOW these losers would be presented to a court. The President signed them.
SCOTUS has decided they want these losers in US courts. Guess what that means? John Edwards-style ambulance chasers getting them off on faux loopholes and technicalities...but but but...they have RIGHTS you see. And public defenders for those that can't pay...read ALL of them...and, one more thing. You KNOW, of course, who PAYS for public defenders, right?
Guess what else?
We didn't write a Bill of Rights for Foreigners that want to kill us. They deserve a tribunal, and a decision. They don't deserve to get a cushy Fed stint inside a US prison on our dimes so they can have "quality time with Bubba".
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
habeas corpus [(hay-bee-uhs kawr-puhs)]
A legal term meaning that an accused person must be presented physically before the court with a statement demonstrating sufficient cause for arrest. Thus, no accuser may imprison someone indefinitely without bringing that person and the charges against him or her into a courtroom. In Latin, habeas corpus literally means “you shall have the body.”
Yes, you are charged with being a terrorist. Habeas Corpus intact.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
They were detained, aka 'taken prisoner' on battlefields - not by cops with Miranda Rights cards, chain of evidence, or any other law enforcement procedures that apply to stateside criminal proceedings.
The proceedings have been conducted under rules of engagement that had passed Congressional and Constitutional muster. The 5 Oligarchs just changed the rules on flimsy grounds that violate not only the letter of the Constitution but also SC precedent (which all libs insist that conservatives should defer to).
So we are not supposed to object?
Now this bit of comedy: I thought we conservatives were the strict protectors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? When did it become so Liberal to uphold the Constitution. marks you out as a liberal, a tepid attempt at Moby-ing.
We conservatives, indeed.....
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Is this a race to see who can be the most conservative?
Pretty juvenile if you ask me.
"Nah-uh, I am more conservative than you"
"nuh-uh, I am"
WTF is wrong with you?
"I am so conservative that I would cut off my arm just to prove I am not a liberal. Anyone who doesn't cut off their arem might as well be a commie!"
Are you psycho?
It kinda goes without saying that I'm more conservative than you. I was merely pointing out that a person saying the things you are saying is not conservative at all.
And you address no points.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
I am more conservative than you.
Prove it.
If you don't cut off your arm, you are a communist.
"So you are one who believes in freedom, but only freedom for the few?"
Yeah, I am...I believe that the United States Constitution only grants freedom to United States citizens. You can read into it any touchy-feely, globalist agenda that you want, but if you resurrected Madison today and asked him if the US Constitution was intended to provide rights to non-citizens involved with attempted terrorist acts on our country, he'd laugh his butt off.
You sit and talk and yap about freedom, but this comes from the same group of people who feel you shouldn't have the freedom to carry a gun, the freedom to do what you want with your money or the idea that you have freedom, but you also have to deal with the actions your freedom gives you.
"You look like a complete fool when you spew that people in Gitmo. are killing Americans. Around 70% of the people who were randomly forced into Gitmo. by the American government have already been proven to have committed not a single crime or have a single connection to any anti-American or an terrorists group."
Sad when your first statement describes someone saying the 2nd statement. You call someone a fool but then pull "Facts" out of your back end and try to show them as the truth.
Yes these people were picked out of a drawing and they were randomly flown over to Gitmo, they also were told that they were getting a new boat and they should come pick it up at the airbase carrying and firing weapons. All the ones released were shown to be in the act of attacking soldiers, but the government felt they were now changed people, many in Iraq have seen the error of following a radical sect, this doesn't show they were innocent, your calling this propaganda but your facts come by people who also would kill to have Hugo as our Pres. Your numbers about the innocent people in Gitmo are based on what facts? Your massive travels there? Your law degree? Your facts filled with horrible punctuation?
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
I saw this on NRO, that they should let the Gitmo terrorists free in a deserted Afghan desert with a gunship circling around and give the terrorists a 2 minute head start
Right or wrong the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection refers to "people," not citizens. This means that one doesn't have to be a citizen, but merely a person, to have the right of equal protection under the law.
With regard to habeas rights, Scalia's analysis is beautiful and exquisite. Habeas has never applied to enemy combatants.
My question is this: The Constitution permits suspension of habeas in certain situations. Lincoln did this during the Civil War. Can Congress and the President suspend Habeas and circumvent the Court's ruling here? Or is that what they tried to do, and the Court slapped them down?
"Other countries around the world do not bestow Americans any rights within their Constitutions..."
So is your point that America is different in that our Constitution grants everyone rights and provides restrictions on government?
And by the way other governments grant American citizens rights.
As for the rest of your hand-wringing comment, you lost us at "around 70% were randomly forced in to Gitmo"
"Around 70% of the people who were randomly forced into Gitmo. by the American government have already been proven to have committed not a single crime or have a single connection to any anti-American or an terrorists group."
Do I need to dumb down to a 3rd grade literacy level for you?
Wrong answer. They were arrested because of where they were and what they were doing...things related to committing terrorist acts, conspiring to commit terrorist acts, supporting terrorist acts, killing or trying to kill Americans (and others, by the way), and generally being really bad people. There are local jails where people could be detained-these Gitmo people are specifically there because they are particularly bad actors.
This is were fact seem to contradict you.
Around 70% of the people in Gitmo have already been proven to not have committed any terrorist act or anything of the sort.
Our own CIA and government even admits that a majority of those still in Gitmo. are guilty of nothing.
Some of the people in Gitmo are there because we told people (who were unwealthy) that if they found us "terrorists" we would pay them; only fools think that that resulted in the capture of terrorists. It resulted in random people getting thrown in jail because as history has proven, people will do anything for money.
But hey facts are silly things aren't they? Why should you bother with facts when you have pure ignorance?
Yeah, I am...I believe that the United States Constitution only grants freedom to United States citizens.
Could you try to read my post? I already addressed this point.
The
"The Constitution grants rights, and restricts the actions of our government. Non-citizens have rights under our law, even if you hate rights its still fact, and guess what the courts agree with me."
You can deny facts but they are still facts.
But I will give you props for admitting that you are anti-freedom and pro-"tyranny".
You are obviously new around here:
1. Use the reply to this link. You will look a little less like an idiot.
2. Learn HTML if you are going to use it. I'll try to keep you from messing up the rest of the page with my post
Now also found at The Minority Report
These "Facts" of yours tend to lack proof, I call them Demofacts.
As to one of your points, we didn't take all of the prisoners from Iraq to Gitmo, if they were low level crap we left them in prisons in Iraq, no need wasting tax money to bring them here. You think we only took in 1,000 people?
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
Maybe we could also use the term "Demofax" for the way facsimiles of KnownFacts get handed down.
DemoFacts.....hah...that deserves a ™ for sure!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
This is just the first stepping stone of Soldiers having to enter the battlefield with Speakers blasting the Miranda rights "We are the US, You are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, if you can't afford a lawyer the ALCU and the Left Wingnuts will supply you with one"
We are heading towards the point that a terrorist's family will sue the US soldier who killed him and the US government will let it happen, I'm sure Harry Reid will sit 2nd chair for the Terrorist.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
We'll probably be taking a lot less prisoners from here on out.
Look at all the discussion we would not be having in the future if we did.
Better to ask for Forgiveness than Permission
Or
Don't ask Don't Tell!
to stop holding Enemy Combatants under U.S. control. If they are captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, let those Countries deal with them. In their own unique way!
Then, let the ACLU go over there and try their Magic.