QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 29 2004, 11:53 AM)
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Jun 29 2004, 11:41 AM)
What this ruling means is that not only do Americans have to bend over backwards for the terrorists, we also now have to bend over. We have to provide them with near American citizenship status and the expenses of legal council to go with it! I say this somewhat jokingly but we'll probably start to hear people suggest that these prisoners deserve Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc. if we're really going to be "fair" with them.
Well if you are done with your slippery slope rant, I'd like to point out that the United States is bound by International Treaties and by extension federal law to afford these people certain rights. This was discussed extensively in Rumsfeld and the Unregistered Detainee, Justified? Resign? War Crime?
This is why the supreme court ruled in the manner that it did. It severely distresses me that this was such a close ruling, I would have expected only 1 or 2 justices to vote against it.
Well, before you get too carried away here, CJ
, I would suggest that you actually read the opinion, Rasul v Bush
at this link. It's a PDF file, so I won't quote any of. The only aspect where "International treaties" came into play in this decision was the treaty between the US and Cuba giving the US sovereignity over GITMO. This, the Supreme Court reasoned gave federal courts jurisdiction over the detainees there, even though there is not a specific federal district assigned to GITMO.
I would also suggest you read the dissent, a rather scathing dissent at that written by Justice Scalia where he warns of a "Pandora's box" being opened where any battlefield detainee anywhere in the world could petition for a writ from any federal court and in essence "forum shop".
Somehow, I don't know that this is the last word on all of this. I suspect that we may see some federal legislation introduced that may fill a couple of holes that the court found.