| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US Supreme Court hears Guantanamo case |
| 2007-12-06 |
| Prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are challenging their detention by the US military as unconstitutional. Lawyers for 36 of them will argue in the Supreme Court today that a law introduced in 2006 wrongly denies them a meaningful way to challenge their detention at the US naval base on Cuba. Lawyers say all they want is a fair hearing: "The key issue before the Supreme Court is whether the United States government can take foreigners and hold them outside of the US without any obligations under the law," said one lawyer. The Bush administration argues the detentions are lawful, humane, and necessary in what it says is a new-style war on terrorism. Law Professor Neal Katyal believes the Supreme Court judges may not agree: "I, like most legal observers, believe that the government will have a very tough time defending the constitutionality of a law that divests the Supreme Court of the ability to hear these cases. " The court has ruled against the administration in two previous Guantanamo cases and one other terrorism case, before the 2006 law took effect. This is the first time the law is being challenged. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 Of course, all the detainees in Guantanamo have been in limbo until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. I vote they deliberate for another decade or so. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-06 19:58 |
| #4 I still do not understand how non U.S. citizens such as these terrorists are afforded any protections under the U.S. Constitution. To me, the only protection they should be afforded is stated in the Geneva Convention and that states that we shoot them on spot for being out of uniform. I can understand cases like the John Walker case being afforded that treatment, but not abu ak-kill-the-infidel. |
| Posted by: SCpatriot@work 2007-12-06 16:58 |
| #3 Three of the more liberal judges on the bench don't worry about whether something is in the Constitution or not, they decide what is "fair" - in their opinion. The Constitution says judges will be allowed to sit on the bench "in good behavior". We need someone with the cojones to try a few of our Supremes for making sh$$ up as they go along. When they're found guilty (especially Ginsburg), they should hang by the neck, as all traitors should. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-12-06 16:49 |
| #2 They have their plate full, currently trying to decide if our constitution really means what it says, or not? Morons, that should take ten minutes, Unless they are desperately trying to find some way to deliberately misinterpet it(And not get hung). |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-12-06 14:01 |
| #1 It appears |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-12-06 08:46 |