U.S. Judge:

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...y_guantanamo_dc

 

 

 

 

U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Suspects Have Rights

 

Mon Jan 31,12:06 PM ET

 

Politics - Reuters

 

By James Vicini

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration and ruled on Monday that the Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects can challenge their confinement and the procedures in their military tribunal review process are unconstitutional.

 

 

Reuters Photo

 

 

AFP

Slideshow: Guantanamo Naval Base

 

 

 

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under U.S. law.

 

"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.

 

More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo after being detained during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in other operations in the U.S. war on terrorism. They are al Qaeda suspects and accused Taliban fighters. The ruling pertained to only 50 detainees.

 

Bush administration attorneys argued the prisoners have no constitutional rights and their lawsuits challenging the conditions of their confinement and seeking their release must be dismissed.

 

The tribunals, formally called a military commission, at the base were authorized by President Bush (news - web sites) after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on the United States, but have been criticized by human rights groups as unfair to defendants.

 

At issue in the ruling was the July 7, 2004, order by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz creating a military tribunal -- called the Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- to check the status of each Guantanamo detainee as an "enemy combatant."

 

The procedures used for the tribunals "are unconstitutional for failing to comport with the requirements of due process," Green concluded.

 

She said the procedures failed to give the detainees access to material evidence and failed to let lawyers help them when the government refused to disclose classified information.

 

The main part of her ruling held the suspects can challenge their confinement and rejected the government's position that all the cases must be dismissed.

 

"Of course, it would be far easier for the government to prosecute the war on terrorism if it could imprison all suspected 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay without having to acknowledge and respect any constitutional rights of detainees," Green said.

 

"Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over two hundred years," Green said.

 

"In sum, there can be no question that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the Guantanamo detainees in this litigation -- the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law -- is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution," she said.

 

Green also ruled that some of the suspects have brought valid claims under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty protecting the rights of prisoners of war.

 

A group of attorneys representing some of the suspects hailed the ruling. "Now it's time for this administration to act," they said in a statement. "Today's decision is a momentous victory for the rule of law, for human rights, and for our democracy."

 

Green's 75-page opinion was the unclassified version and stemmed from 11 cases involving Guantanamo prisoners.

 

Her ruling probably will not be the final word on the issue. A different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19 dismissed the cases of seven Guantanamo prisoners on the grounds they had no recognizable constitutional rights and were subject to the military review process.

 

 

 

The cases could be appealed to the U.S. appeals court, and then ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). (Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I suppose an arguement could be made that since not all of the detainees are American they may not be subject the rights and rules we do as citizens. But wouldn't it be smarter from a PR standpoint to play by the rules that make us the greatest nation in the world and apply them to even our enemies? It certainly would give critics of the admin. less of a leg to stand on.

 

At this point so many of these assheads have been detained for years and cutting them some kind of deal might finally give us the info we need for a capture/killing of OBL. Hell, anything to push things along. Right? I don't really see the point in being so hardline that it interferes with providing justice for the 9-11 attacks. If it makes them talk by giving them... "something" like a chance to defend themselves in court wouldn't it make sense to do it?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't understand why they didn't just give them POW rights in the first place. It wouldn't have caused this massive uproar and opened a quesiton of exactly what they're going to get, which is only going to be worse on the govt.

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, this decision will be shot down on appeal, as it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

 

As most people can surmise --- NON-AMERICAN CITIZENS DON'T HAVE FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Of course, this decision will be shot down on appeal, as it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

 

As most people can surmise --- NON-AMERICAN CITIZENS DON'T HAVE FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.

-=Mike

Shortsightedness has always been one of your greatest talents Mikey-boy.

 

 

 

"If it makes them talk by giving them... "something" like a chance to defend themselves in court wouldn't it make sense to do it?"

 

 

We ARE after justice right? I guess it wouldn't make sense to the bloodthirsty. But it IS an idea that no doubt would work on some of the detainees. Perhaps not all of them. It's still better than the NOTHING that has been produced thus far in the capture/killing of OBL.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

You are missing his point. They are not Americans. Thus they have claim to the rights outlined in the American Constitution. End of discussion.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Not only are they not Americans, they're not soldiers. Terrorists do not deserve POW protections. They deserve a .45 bullet in the back of the head and a shallow mass grave.

[Guest BDC]

No, not .45, those rounds are too expensive.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Shortsightedness has always been one of your greatest talents Mikey-boy ... "If it makes them talk by giving them... "something" like a chance to defend themselves in court wouldn't it make sense to do it?"

Yeah, then they'll plead the 5th...

[Guest INXS]

It's very important to remember that a lot of these detainees will be innocent or have little to no useful information. To hold people for two years without charge or access to a lawyer, and in what has already been proven to be abusive conditions, is simply disgusting. The American people should be ashamed of this.

[Guest BDC]

Yeah, because we force women to suck cock, too. Shut up.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's very important to remember that a lot of these detainees will be innocent or have little to no useful information. To hold people for two years without charge or access to a lawyer, and in what has already been proven to be abusive conditions, is simply disgusting. The American people should be ashamed of this.

Yup. Shame that the US is observing the same tactic of holding POW's UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER.

 

We're such total bastards.

 

And I'm sure the people in Gitmo got it much worse than, say, Nick Berg.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Well, we're civilized, Mike.

 

Even the feds estimated that about half the people in these places are innocent.

 

That being said, the U.S. constitution does not apply. We can technically go ahead and hold them, and beat the shit out of them. Doesn't mean we should.

 

And way to be relevant BDC.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Even the feds estimated that about half the people in these places are innocent.

So what were they doing taking up arms against US and coalition forces?

[Special K 0]

That is exactly the point. Not all of them were doing that. Many were rousted from their homes on tips.