Posted: 6/12/2008 12:03:08 PM EDT
|
***Calling Badfish*** The SCOTUS ruled that they have the right to have their detention challenged in our civilian Federal courts, right?  That does NOT mean that they have to be TRIED in the civilian Federal courts, right? Those are two entirely different things.
|
Yep. I'm reading the case right now, I'm going to post my impressions of it in a couple - gulp - hours. This fucker is 130-something pages long. I'll put in my Con Law notes for the prior cases as well - we'll have a nerd party. |
Thanks, I figured you were online. We may not agree on this whole Constitutional rights for terrorists thing but this ruling isn't the death knell for tribunals. They can still be tried by military tribunals and subsequently executed. I guess I'm still okay with that part. I DO, however, VEHEMENTLY oppose TRIALS in our pussy-ass "justice" system. So far this ruling doesn't mean that will happen. Whew! |
All the court is saying is that if congress is going to strip habeas, they have to jump through all the hoops. Tribunals are very much still legitimate. |
 Don't substitute your knowledge of the case for those of us who have been following it. This means that detainees can challenge the legality of their detention in Federal Court. Thats it. All it means is that they can ask a federal judge whether or not the executive has the authority to hold them. Nothing to cry about, this won't get anyone out of gitmo. |
No need to presume to know what I've read and haven't read. Based on my reading of the opinion, I'd say that even the majority would have to agree with my statement that the ultimate consequences of this ruling are not clear. From today's opinion at p.66 The extent of the showing required of the Government in these cases is a matter to be determined. We need not explore it further at this stage. We do hold that when the judicial power to issue habeas corpus properly is invoked the judicial officer must have adequate authority to make a determination in light of the relevant law and facts and to formulate and issue appropriate orders for relief, including, if necessary, an order directing the prisoner’s release. If the Court doesn't even know what is required of the government in showing the detentions justified, how is that you seem to know how this will shake out procedurally? |
All the court is saying is that that particular issue isn't before them, so they aren't going to determine it. This is what courts do, they answer the question before them. When habeas petitions start being heard, this issue will get fleshed out. |
The issue isn't before them because they decided the issue prematurely. In any event, it appears you agree that we don't know what the actually legal effect of this decision will be, which was my point. For example, can the government use hearsay? We don't know. It is hard to make a well reasoned decision by bringing up hypothetical problems with a statute. |
there are plenty of circumstances where constitutional issues are at stake, e.g., every administrative law proceeding, where you are required to exhaust your administrative remedies before attacking the procedures on constitutional grounds. we need a merge button on these threads. |