SCOTUS Guantanamo hearing starts today

[reprise]

A landmark case involving Australia's two Guantanamo Bay detainees will begin tomorrow in the highest court in the United States.

The US Supreme Court will hear from lawyers for David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib and two British detainees who will argue that Guantanamo Bay does fall within the jurisdiction of US courts.

If the court agrees the lawyers will seek to have their clients' detention declared unlawful.

US court to hear Hicks, Habib case

No matter what the outcome, this case has huge implications for the US military and its justice system both now and in the future.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Bah. Pah. Pointless. May as well shoot them all dead now. Justice is dead. I'm off to have a drink.

Manifesto's Dada Poem:

Norden nonchalantly skim
Coming macabre, refreshing, appetizing
mercilessly hallucinated the slaughterhouse that it is
juicy virgins arrest himself
'What's the matter?'
'What did I do this time?'
And now it is three o'clock in the morning and we have a couple of trollops here who are doing somersaults on the bare floor.

 

[reprise]

It's utterly extraordinary that all those people who have justified the US detention of people at Guantanamo have no interest whatsoever in the legality or otherwise of such detention being decided by the SCOTUS. It's one thing to argue why the Geneva Protocols or international law in general should not apply to those detainees; it's one heck of a different ball game when the body charged with interpreting the most fundamental document of US law is charged whether deciding whether or not the actions of the US are "legal" according to its own Constitution.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It's utterly extraordinary that all those people who have justified the US detention of people at Guantanamo have no interest whatsoever in the legality or otherwise of such detention being decided by the SCOTUS. It's one thing to argue why the Geneva Protocols or international law in general should not apply to those detainees; it's one heck of a different ball game when the body charged with interpreting the most fundamental document of US law is charged whether deciding whether or not the actions of the US are "legal" according to its own Constitution.

ish becaush... :hic: there's no fuggin' justish... Now shhit down with me an have a drink...



have i told you i love feathertail glidersh? No, I do! They're me best mates...

 

[shuize]

Just out of curiosity, if the Supreme Court finds jurisdiction, does that mean we can tell Cuba what to do from now on?

 

[gnome]

We could tell them what to do if they showed up at Guantanamo Bay, and they wouldn't have much to say about it.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in case brought by some detainees at Guantanamo Bay that could limit the powers of a president and his cabinet in wartime.

I am amazed and disappointed that the Bush Administration is taking the following position to defend the detention of "illegal combatants"

one of the court's more conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, questioned that premise as he read directly from the Guantanamo treaty signed by the U.S. and Cuba.


says U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
If the Guantanamo prisoners were afforded the right to a trial in a U.S. court why wouldn't every other enemy enjoy the same right. "Stepping across that line would be impossible to go back from," he said.

For a defense Olson uses a slippery slope argument.

 

[RCNelson]

CBC Article:
The Bush administration defended itself by saying that Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba and therefore beyond the reach of U.S. law. ...

. . . .

... Antonin Scalia, ... read directly from the Guantanamo treaty signed by the U.S. and Cuba.

"It says the United States ... recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the republic of Cuba over the leased area.

"Now I take that to mean that they are sovereign even during the term of the lease. You may say it's artificial, but there it is. It's the law of the land as you say."

So, Mr. Scalia, does this mean the Cuban government can set the Guantanamo Bay detainees free?