Supreme Court will hear first appeals involving Guantanamo detainees

[Baconfoot]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/scotus.detainees/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the first test of the Bush administration's sweeping anti-terrorism policies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two appeals over whether hundreds of terrorist suspects in secret custody are being held unlawfully.

It is the first time the justices will review the constitutionality of the White House's war on terror laws that have grown from the September 11, 2001, attacks.

<SNIP>

The cases involve the overseas detention of some 660 men from about 40 countries, said to be al Qaeda or Taliban fighters. Some have been held for as long as two years at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers or family.

The government has been interrogating the men, and deciding whether they will face a military tribunal or released back to their home countries. Most of the men were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

At issue is whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction to intervene in the continued U.S. military detention of people held overseas, and whether that violates constitutional and international law.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, in the Justice Department's brief, said the detentions are lawful since "American soldiers and their allies are still engaged in armed conflict overseas against an unprincipled, unconventional, and savage foe."

A list of prominent former judges, POWs, human rights groups and retired military are protesting the detention, in briefs filed with the court. The Associated Press reported that among those listed on the briefs protesting detention was Fred Korematsu, whose name is on a Supreme Court case that upheld U.S. detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

<SNIP>

The cases are Rasul v. Bush, case no. 03-0334 and Odah v. U.S., case no. 03-0343.

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Yep about bloody time the court listened to the case

[Baconfoot]

2. I'm not sure whether to be excited they took the case...

or afraid... very afraid.

:scared:

[kayell]

3. Agreed, it could be good. or very very bad

Depends on how adverse to human rights the Scalia 5 are feeling. I hope that sanity will prevail. If this goes the wrong way, it might be a clear signal to find another country to live in. Do we know which judges voted to accept the case?

[Vikingking66]

4. hey

If they rule against them its not like anything changes...

[kayell]

9. No, if they support the administration it establishes

a VERY dangerous precedent that could lead to more horrors. If they support the BFEE concentration camps, I'm packing my bags, even before the s/election.

[hang a left]

5. How this case goes down will chart the course of the future of this

country. We are going down, or we are not. It is that simple.

[TahitiNut]

7. I agree that if SCOTUS gives this madminstration a pass ...

... we're going down. If they merely slap wrists, we're going down. Only the most lopsided ruling against the regime will give me any kind of small comfort. I cannot conceive of any conscionable conservative supporting this abuse of Imperial power. This is fascism/nationalism on steroids, imho.

There are "660 suspected terrorists currently being held in near-total secrecy in a U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

All they need are 6 more to achieve the "number of the beast."

[UpInArms]

6. we'll find out if the felonious five have

any shred of remorse for their political decision and see if they have an ounce of justice or truly support our Constitution.

[peterh]

8. I’m somewhat optimistic about this….

When the story first broke a week or so ago, it raised some eyebrows just by the mere fact that it was selected and not left on the conveyer belt towards the circle file.

Not sure what the rules are for selection, but me thinks, Scalia and company would have preferred that this had stayed on the conveyer belt, but didn’t have the votes for it. I remember the original article saying something to the effect that this item raised enough “alarm” with some to be selected.