Court Says Guantanamo Detainees Have Right to Challenge Detention

Damn right they do. They deserve justice and WE deserve the TRUTH. I have had enough of a government who thinks "We the people" don't know what is really going on.

Next

In this image reviewed by the U.S. Military, soldiers patrol the perimeter of the Camp Delta detention compound, which has housed foreign prisoners since 2002, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba, Friday, June 6, 2008. (Brennan Linsley - AP)

In this June 2, 2008 file photo, reviewed by the U.S. Military, part of a legal defense team walk at Camp Justice, part of the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In this June 5, 2008 file photo, reviewed by the U.S. Military, members of a legal defense team walk at Camp Justice, part of the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, Pool, File) (Brennan Linsley - AP)

June 5, 2008 file photo, Reviewed by the U.S. Military, a U.S. trooper walks at Camp Justice, the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

June 6, 2008 file photo, Reviewed by the U.S. Military, the sun rises over Camp Delta detention compound at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, Pool, File) (Brennan Linsley - AP)

June 4, 2008 file photo. A U.S. trooper jogs at the tent city which makes up the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, Pool, File) (Brennan Linsley - AP)

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; 12:28 PM

The Supreme Court today rebuked the Bush administration for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.

By a 5 to 4 vote that brought strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the court's conservative justices, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress was inadequate to insure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, receive their day in court.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Justice Antonin Scalia took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, calling the court's decision a "self-invited . . . incursion into military affairs," and was even stronger in a written dissent joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

( Yes, of course because America started an unjust war with "radical Isalamists" so use our radical Christians who actually think we have enemies and let them deal with it )

On a recent trip to Tanzania, we took note on one street there is not one, two or three different faiths-There a lot more! Lutheran, Catholic and Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Mormon- [Jesus Christ of the latter day Saints] They have no problem getting along with one another- so just where does the problem lie???

Roberts filed a separate dissent defending the alternative process to judicial hearings, calling them "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Kennedy, resuming the pivotal role he played in last term's decisions, sided with the court's liberal justices in deciding that detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus -- the chance to protest their detention before an independent judge. In 2004, the court held that the detainees had that right under statute, which Congress then changed.

Kennedy defended the role of the courts even in time of war. "The gravity of the separation-of-powers issues raised by these cases and the fact that these detainees have been denied meaningful access to a judicial forum for a period of years render these cases exceptional," he wrote.

It was not immediately clear how judicial review of the detainees will proceed.

The cases decided today, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, were brought on behalf of 37 foreigners who remain among the approximately 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. All were captured on foreign soil and have been designated enemy combatants. They've proclaimed their innocence and for years have asked federal courts for a chance to challenge their captivity.

Some have been imprisoned since soon after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and while they have won at the Supreme Court before, none has had a full hearing before a federal judge.

The court has confronted the issue before, ruling in 2004 in Rasul v. Bush that federal habeas corpus statutes extended to Guantanamo Bay detainees because of the unique control that the U.S. government has over the land.

The Republican-led Congress responded by changing the law, and after another adverse court ruling and at the urging of the Bush administration, it passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. The legislation endorsed a military system for designating detainees as enemy combatants and for trying those charged with crimes. It also strictly limited judicial oversight.

'A Soldier's Officer'

Double Negative Injustice

There is no other word for the deplorable acts by the US government and military. To charge one after such heinous trauma grossly depicts the tosspot(s) [LITERALLY!] calling the tea kettle black.
We have sociopaths in office running this country, and THIS IS A LAW...

1] Under military law, soldiers who attempt suicide can be prosecuted under the theory that it affects the order and discipline of a unit and brings discredit to the armed forces...

Perhaps the armed forces should revisit their actions, question the authority that led them to act and destroyed many lives of our Nations young people. We have created a new breed
of veterans, and if it were me, I guarantee someone would have been shot if I was still actively
enlisted- because this is BU*SH*IT- backed up by one psychotic DICK (V.P.)
With regard to the war, Americans are paying a steep price for the actions of those "in charge"

By Dana Priest and Anne Hull

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 2, 2007; Page A01

In a nondescript conference room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside listened last week as an Army prosecutor outlined the criminal case against her in a preliminary hearing. The charges: attempting suicide and endangering the life of another soldier while serving in Iraq.

Her hands trembled as Maj. Stefan Wolfe, the prosecutor, argued that Whiteside, now a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed, should be court-martialed. After seven years of exemplary service, the 25-year-old Army reservist faces the possibility of life in prison if she is tried and convicted.

• Timeline: How Did She Get Here? • Audio Gallery: Lt. Whiteside's Story • Full Series: Walter Reed and Beyond • Blog: Washington Post Investigations TOOLBOX Resize Text Save/Share + Digg Newsvine del.icio.us Stumble It! Reddit Facebook Print This E-mail This COMMENT washingtonpost.com readers have posted 382 comments about this item. View All Comments » Comments are closed for this item. Discussion Policy Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article

Military psychiatrists at Walter Reed who examined Whiteside after she recovered from her self-inflicted gunshot wound diagnosed her with a severe mental disorder, possibly triggered by the stresses of a war zone. But Whiteside's superiors considered her mental illness "an excuse" for criminal conduct, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

At the hearing, Wolfe, who had already warned Whiteside's lawyer of the risk of using a "psychobabble" defense, pressed a senior psychiatrist at Walter Reed to justify his diagnosis.

"I'm not here to play legal games," Col. George Brandt responded angrily, according to a recording of the hearing. "I am here out of the genuine concern for a human being that's breaking and that is broken. She has a severe and significant illness. Let's treat her as a human being, for Christ's sake!"

In recent months, prodded by outrage over poor conditions at Walter Reed, the Army has made a highly publicized effort to improve treatment of Iraq veterans and change a culture that stigmatizes mental illness. The Pentagon has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to new research and to care for soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, and on Friday it announced that it had opened a new center for psychological health in Rosslyn.

But outside the Pentagon, the military still largely deals with mental health issues in an ad hoc way, often relying on the judgment of combat-hardened commanders whose understanding of mental illness is vague or misinformed. The stigma around psychological wounds can still be seen in the smallest of Army policies. While family members of soldiers recovering at Walter Reed from physical injuries are provided free lodging and a per diem to care for their loved ones, families of psychiatric outpatients usually have to pay their own way.

"It's a disgrace," said Tom Whiteside, a former Marine and retired federal law enforcement officer who lost his free housing after his daughter's physical wounds had healed enough that she could be moved to the psychiatric ward. A charity organization, the Yellow Ribbon Fund, provides him with an apartment near Walter Reed so he can be near his daughter.

Under military law, soldiers who attempt suicide can be prosecuted under the theory that it affects the order and discipline of a unit and brings discredit to the armed forces. In reality, criminal charges are extremely rare unless there is evidence that the attempt was an effort to avoid service or that it endangered others.

At one point, Elizabeth Whiteside almost accepted the Army's offer to resign in lieu of court-martial. But it meant she would have to explain for the rest of her life why she was not given an honorable discharge. Her attorney also believed that she would have been left without the medical care and benefits she needed.

No decision has yet been made on whether Whiteside's case will proceed to court-martial. The commander of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe Jr., who has jurisdiction over the case, "must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the charges against Lieutenant Whiteside and recommend how to dispose of the charges," said his spokesman.

'A Soldier's Officer'

---