NationStates Jolt Archive

The "American" attorney general, Michael Mukasey, is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that Gitmo detainees have the right to appear before a civilian judge. They are proceeding with trials anyway.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa6.cfm

What do you think is the next step?

Can this guy be disbarred for going against Supreme Court rulings?

Can this guy be disbarred for going against Supreme Court rulings?

Maybe but who is going to enforce the Supreme Court Ruling?

If they would have been classified as POW's, then this would not have happened.

Ok. Here's my take. Nothing is stopping the trials from actually taking place themselves but the Supreme Court decision states that the Enemy Combatants can challenge their detention in civilian courts. The Supreme Court did not rule that the can not trials can go forward.

Also:

Mr. Bush said in Rome Thursday he will abide by the court's ruling but said, in his words, "that doesn't mean I have to agree with it." He said his administration will study the opinion and determine whether additional legislation might be appropriate.

I agree. All the Supreme Court has really said is that they will be subject to civilian judicial review.

I agree. All the Supreme Court has really said is that they will be subject to civilian judicial review.

So based on this ruling, it looks like Mukasey is not really violating the Supreme Court Ruling.

The "American" attorney general, Michael Mukasey, is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that Gitmo detainees have the right to appear before a civilian judge. They are proceeding with trials anyway.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa6.cfm

What do you think is the next step?

I think this story maybe more about a journalist who is trying to sell papers. Mixing apples and oranges and hoping the public doesn't know the difference.

I could be wrong but I don't believe that Mukasey hasn't already determined that the tribunals can proceed and he isn't in violation of anything in doing so.

Ugh. I'm starting to hate our system. Whatever happened to checks and balances? Nobody is paying ANY attention to them :mad:.

Uh CM? The detainees can challenge their detention in civilian courts.

I think this story maybe more about a journalist who is trying to sell papers. Mixing apples and oranges and hoping the public doesn't know the difference.

I could be wrong but I don't believe that Mukasey hasn't already determined that the tribunals can proceed and he isn't in violation of anything in doing so.

The Supreme Court is not stopping the tribunals from going forward. All this does is that the detainees can challenge their detention in a civilian court.

The Supreme Court is not stopping the tribunals from going forward. All this does is that the detainees can challenge their detention in a civilian court.

Right, so we have journalist that is trying to pedal that Mukasey is doing something illegal due to the SC ruling yesterday. Like I said a journalist who is mixing apples and oranges and hoping the public doesn't know the difference. :(

Right, so we have journalist that is trying to pedal that Mukasey is doing something illegal due to the SC ruling yesterday. Like I said a journalist who is mixing apples and oranges and hoping the public doesn't know the difference. :(

It sure fooled Cherry Ridge. Then again, that's not surprising.

It sure fooled Cherry Ridge. Then again, that's not surprising.


But I can see how it did so. For many people they are only skimming the news and not exacting details. Journalists count on this. Selling emotion is their job so they must raise the emotional levels of the reader. Clarity and facts be damned.

But I can see how it did so. For many people they are only skimming the news and not exacting details. Journalists count on this. Selling emotion is their job so they must raise the emotional levels of the reader. Clarity and facts be damned.

Then comes along people who actually read the articles :D

BOOM!!!!

I am not entirely ceratin that Cherry Ridge is wrong. The Supreme Court decision explicitly states that the suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional.

If it can be shown that the trials by the military at Guantanamo are suspending the writ of habeas corpus, then it could be argued that these trials are unconstitutional.

If it is decided that the trials are not a suspension because the detainess would still have access to a civilian court, one is left with the question as to why these military trials are still taking place, as they are useless from a legal standpoint.

It would be nice if one of NSG's resident legal eagles could comment.

The Supreme Court is not stopping the tribunals from going forward. All this does is that the detainees can challenge their detention in a civilian court.Not to mention the attorney general has no authority over the Department of Defense, which is managing the military commissions.

Huzzah for justice!

Maybe but who is going to enforce the Supreme Court Ruling?
Damn, I swore I just heard Andy Jackson in the distance. He was cheering.

The Supreme Court is not stopping the tribunals from going forward. All this does is that the detainees can challenge their detention in a civilian court.

Exactly. Its nothing big or bad. I really hate the spin that people give on something like this.

Why are the military trials continuing after this ruling anyway?

Why are the military trials continuing after this ruling anyway?

The supreme court can't really enforce anything. Thats the executive Branches job. Judical decides if the law is constituational, the Legislative makes laws and the executive branch enforces the laws.

Why are the military trials continuing after this ruling anyway?

because nothing in the ruling required the government to suspend those trials.

because nothing in the ruling required the government to suspend those trials.

But what good are the military trials if the defendant can simply claim that his right to habeas corpus has been suspended and wants a civilian trial?

Aren't they just a waste of time and money now?

But what good are the military trials if the defendant can simply claim that his right to habeas corpus has been suspended and wants a civilian trial?

Aren't they just a waste of time and money now?

that's...not what the writ does. The writ of habeas corpus literally means the writ to "produce the body". THe writ allows an individual to challenge his detainment and allow a judge to hear his arguments that his detainment is unlawful.

It does NOT mean "I can move to civilian court". What it allows is a detainee to petition a non military court to hear his argument that his detainment is unlawful. It basically allows the detainee to claim that the government did not have sufficient probable cause to hold him, and, if he could demonstrate this, have the judge order his release.

It doesn't let him simply change venue to civilian courts, but it does allow him to force the government to justify their holding of him.

... but it does allow him to force the government to justify their holding of him.

If the government has a sound justification they should not be afraid of this being tested in a civilian court.

Why are the military trials continuing after this ruling anyway?

Does this make it a little bit clearer?

While the new ruling threatens to delay the military trials, it does not necessarily deal them a fatal blow, said David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"I think it makes it more likely than not that no trials will be complete by the time of the November election," Glazier said.

He said military judges may go ahead with the war-crimes trials while detainees' challenges move through federal courts, unless a federal judge tells them to wait. But he said some military judges may choose to wait, especially if they believe the defense could prevail in civilian court.

But Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said it was unclear whether the 19 detainees who have been charged with war crimes can challenge their trials now, or whether they need to wait until their trials are over to appeal to civilian courts. He said judges typically favor the latter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201996_2.html

Okay, let's see if I understand this clearly.

What this basically says is that if the detainee chooses, he can challenge his detention in civilian court. This is somewhat independent of the military trial proceedings, but not entirely. If a detainee gets his day in civilian court, and then wins, the military trial will not happen. If he loses, that means the government has shown enough cause that the detainee can go to trial. Those who have gone to trial or are in the process can use this as a method of appealing the military trial.

Am I more or less correct?

I honestly don't know for sure yet, but I think you're on the right track...

that's...not what the writ does. The writ of habeas corpus literally means the writ to "produce the body". THe writ allows an individual to challenge his detainment and allow a judge to hear his arguments that his detainment is unlawful.

It does NOT mean "I can move to civilian court". What it allows is a detainee to petition a non military court to hear his argument that his detainment is unlawful. It basically allows the detainee to claim that the government did not have sufficient probable cause to hold him, and, if he could demonstrate this, have the judge order his release.

It doesn't let him simply change venue to civilian courts, but it does allow him to force the government to justify their holding of him.

Exactly.

Okay, let's see if I understand this clearly.

What this basically says is that if the detainee chooses, he can challenge his detention in civilian court. This is somewhat independent of the military trial proceedings, but not entirely. If a detainee gets his day in civilian court, and then wins, the military trial will not happen. If he loses, that means the government has shown enough cause that the detainee can go to trial. Those who have gone to trial or are in the process can use this as a method of appealing the military trial.

Am I more or less correct?

Sorta. It's questionable whether those who have already lost at trial can take advantage of it, because the burden of proof for conviction is higher than the burden necessary to detain, and if they already lost at a military trial, then presumably there was already showing of ample proof (if you have enough proof to confict, then by logic you must have had enough to hold, basically).

But other than that, pretty much yes.

The "American" attorney general, Michael Mukasey, is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that Gitmo detainees have the right to appear before a civilian judge. They are proceeding with trials anyway.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa6.cfm

What do you think is the next step?

Is that even legal?

Is that even legal?

In this case...

Yes. Read the article.

Sorta. It's questionable whether those who have already lost at trial can take advantage of it, because the burden of proof for conviction is higher than the burden necessary to detain, and if they already lost at a military trial, then presumably there was already showing of ample proof (if you have enough proof to confict, then by logic you must have had enough to hold, basically).

But other than that, pretty much yes.

But they can use this argument to try to appeal any convictions in before a civilian court, probably. SCOTUS has just said they have the rights to Habeas Corpus just like citizens. I'm thinking that I would say that they also have the right to fair trials, and that that right had been violated by 5+ years of detention, torture and inadequate legal council - for starters.

The way this is going I'm having trouble seeing how any convictions handed out by the military court would be constitutional.