The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that prisoners being held at Guantanamo as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

(Kudos to the ACLU in this particular case) This is quite a blow to Bush's assertion that actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law.

Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect America’s perception of the “war on terrorism”?

Will the Court’s decision have an effect on Bush’s approval ratings or popularity?

Is this a sign that Bush's actions in the WOT will no longer go unquestioned?

Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect America’s perception of the “war on terrorism”?

I sure hope so. By breaking international and federal law our country has simply taken itself down to the same level as terrorists. Several people here on AD have made very compelling arguments supporting the position that terrorists are afforded certain protections under the Geneva Conventions and US Law, finally the supreme court agrees.

Will the Court’s decision have an effect on Bush’s approval ratings or popularity?

That would be like Christmas coming early. To a certain extent this somewhat legitimizes some of the criticism Bush has been receiving. It won't hold much water with his die hard supporters, but I think the majority of the country has finally had enough.

Is this a sign that Bush's actions in the WOT will no longer go unquestioned?

I think so, people are starting to realize that we don't have to shred our constitution and our morals in order to fight the war on terror. I credit the Abu Gharib situation by and large for opening people's eyes to this. I do not think it will be long before significant challenges to the Patriot Act start to arise either.

Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect America’s perception of the “war on terrorism”

Will the Court’s decision have an effect on Bush’s approval ratings or popularity?

Is this a sign that Bush's actions in the WOT will no longer go unquestioned?

I don't know that it will have a direct affect of America's perception of the WOT but I think this was a great decision. My biggest issue with the detention of prisoner's at Gitmo was their presumed guilt before innocence. It flew in the face of our very being.

I don't think this will have a direct affect on his approval ratings. I think it will go fairly unnoticed due to the other press today. But it is nice to see justice at work.

I think this is an action that demonstrates actions in the WOT will not go unquestioned. Prisoner's should not be held indefinitely without some sort of due process. If we truly believe that all people have certain "inalienable rights" then so do the prisoner's at Gitmo. Let them see their day in court and let them have access to the judicial process.

edit to add: While I am neither a Bush basher nor a Bush lover this issue was one of my issues with the Bush admin. The SC's decision has not pushed me more away from him (nor has it brought me closer) but I am happy with the outcome.

Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect America’s perception of the “war on terrorism”?

Not much. I think that most Americans have already decided where they stand on the issue. I know that my opinion of the Supreme Court has dropped to a new low. What justice do Al Qaeda and other terrorists offer to American prisoners? None. They just behead them. And now, in a move which panders to the big lawyer industry, American tax payers will be forced to pay for the legal council of foreign terrorist prisoners!

DeerJerkyDave, I'm shocked that you have been allowed access to every single prisoner and have reviewed the cases and evidence against every single prisoner held, and therefore are able to conclude that everyone who has been arrested is a guilty-as-hell "foreign terrorist prisoner." Maybe this points to a new low in the security at Gitmo...

I also take issue with your "this is how they treat us, so that's how we should treat them" mentality. I thought America was supposed to be the moral superior, the people rescuing the backwards, uncivilized Arabs from the barbaric behavior of their government. Yet you have no issue with stooping to their level?

Is this a sign that Bush's actions in the WOT will no longer go unquestioned?

I certainly hope so.

The scariest part of this supreme court decision... there were dissenting justices.
This is such an unbelievably clear cut issue: the right to a fair trial is on the bill of rights for Pete's sake. The idea was to protect the people from unfair prosecution by the government or their peers.

I think that the Supreme Court, while it has been regrettably late in coming to a decision, has come to the right one. It has allowed inmates of Gitmo to mount legal challenges to their detention, but it has not removed the right of government to hold them without charge or trial. (If it had done, presumably either all inmates would have been charged yesterday, or they would all have been released, or some combination of the two.)

In doing so, the USSC has trod the fine line between the rule of law and the need for protection from dangerous people who ignore the rule of law (on both sides of the War on Terrorism) admirably well. My only regret is that it has taken them nearly three years (since the Afghan invasion when most of these prisoners were taken) to come to this decision.

Dear cubejockey,

I hope you aren't really likening our position regarding prisoners/detainees to that of today's Muslim extremists. That is an incomprehensible and indefensible view.

America's perceptions may be changed a bit as a result of the misleading spin being placed on these decisions by a media bent on bringing down the Bush administration.

The only significant thing to evolve here is that the gov't will have to show cause as to why an individual is being held. Not to say they can't be held. Not to say they must have a trial. Simply to say the gov't must give the court their reasons for holding them. This is not a bad thing at all.

Passion

The scariest part of this supreme court decision... there were dissenting justices.



Geez, these people are not citizens of this country. They are people picked up on the battlefield. A little different don't you think.

My big problem with this ruling isn't what it says, but what it doesn't say. It should be clear, so clear that both sides can't be claiming some sort of victory. Lately the USSC seems to be trying to walk the middle, and that isn't their job. The important case((Pedia, not spelled right I'm sure)they threw back, and the recent Pledge ruling didn't settle the issue either. They are the finally authority on any legal issue in this country, I can accept that. Can't accept them not doing so.

I agree to an extent. But we shouldn't be allowed to hold prisoner's without any form of legal system. Unless they are tried and they are able to defend themselves then how can we be certain that only the guilty are sitting there locked up with all of their rights stripped?

Plus if this a battle field example then shouldn't the Geneva Conventions take hold? Shouldn't it be one or the other?

Don't get me wrong, I want the guilty to pay! I don't want terrorist to walk free.

First of all, I didn't say that we should treat foreign terrorist prisoners like they treat American prisoners. You made that up. Second, the prisoners being kept in Cuba were picked up on the battle field! These are people who were caught trying to kill Americans. Most are guilty. And a justice system is in place, through military tribunals, which decides guilty or innocent. In fact, the U.S. has released many prisoners from Gitmo that they have "found" to be innocent. Ironically, some of those released ended up returning to their terrorist organizations, as this Newsweek article points out.

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.

At least you softened that accusation by adding "most". Not necessarily all, by a long shot. When the whole country is a battleground, innocent civilians are just as liable to be rounded up as combatants. One of them has already been released because he was one of those (I saw this on a news program over the weekend - CBS or NBC, I don't recall which.)

And there have been other releases:

Here's a couple of other hypotheses:

If the interrogators haven't gotten the information they thought they were going to get in two years, I don't think the chances are going to improve any time in the future. What, you think we should warehouse these people in Cuba indefinitely with no trial? I, personally would rather not pay for it. Try 'em, release or sentence 'em and be done with it.

Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect America’s perception of the “war on terrorism”?

I don't think so. Any showing of terrorists is bound to remind people that there are indeed terrorists out there.

Will the Court’s decision have an effect on Bush’s approval ratings or popularity?

As above. The only exposure most people will get in the media. Besides the smug Peter Jennings voice-over of horrible conditions on the beach in Cuba (?), there will be visuals of the actual combantants / terrorists, and where they came from. This has to remind most of us of the dangers faced. Especially when, as deerjerkydave points out, some of them when released have ended up back in the fight against us (Newsweek article). Sort of a terrorists 'catch and release' program.

Is this a sign that Bush's actions in the WOT will no longer go unquestioned?

Aha - yes, I think that it does. This administration is killing its own cause.

1 - Pass the patriot act which was needed to break down walls as noted by the 9/11 commission. But, it makes people worry about civil liberties, especially by certain groups like the ACLU, who note that...

2 - We have held prisoners imcommunicado in Cuba for 300 days. Is THIS the way to show the American people of your respect for liberty, and make them trust you on item #1? You can say that they are terrorists, but that's the same as the FBI taking my car without trial and saying 'well, he's a drug dealer.' Due process has to exist for everybody, even criminal, terrorist enemy combatants with no respect for anything.

That is not the way to sell a war to the American people. Just pure ammo for the likes of Michael Moore etc. For someone who is supposed to be Hitler, he really needs a better propaganda plan. Glad that the courts are putting at least a partial solution in place.

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.