US to carry on military trials at Guantanamo despite ruling

[Mugu]

Fanny Carrier, AFP via Yahoo

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hearings for terror suspects before US military tribunals in Guantanamo are going ahead despite a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed detainees have a right to challenge their detention in a civilian court.

Legal experts had described the high court's decision as the death knell of the special tribunals created by President George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress to try "war on terror" suspects.

But Justice Department chief Michael Mukasey said the controversial tribunals at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would continue their work and last week, two preliminary hearings were held as scheduled.

The hearings focused on Omar Khadr, a Canadian, and Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan, both detained in Afghanistan for having allegedly thrown grenades when they were still teenagers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080624/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamojustice">Complete article

[Javaman]

1. aka fuck you and here's a thumb in the eye of your "legal" system. nt

[Subdivisions]

2. God. Damn. It!!! n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Kangaroo Court

[Hydra]

4. Show trials

Funny how SCOTUS is irrelevant in their eyes, even after they've stocked the bench with their cronies.

More proof that the law is what they say it is. I believe that's called a dictatorship.

[spanone]

5. so now bu$h* can disregard the supreme court....hey nancy!!! nevermind

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Yeah when it's one branch of gov't (scotus) vs the other two it's not a fair fight n/t

[Dogtown]

7. Scofflaws,

every goddam one of the neocon rats.


JFC, when will it end? (rhetorical, o/c, but McSock could be selected...)

[Igel]

8. Of course.

From the decision: "Except in cases of undue delay, such as the present, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant's habeas petition at least until after the CSRT has had a chance to review his status."

"Our decision today holds only that the petitioners before us are entitled to seek the writ; that the DTA review procedures are an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus; and that the petitioners in these cases need not exhaust the review procedures in the Court of Appeals before proceeding with their habeas actions in the District Court. The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA §7, 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007). Accordingly, both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact. Our holding with regard to exhaustion should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs. The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine a detainee's status before a court entertains that detainee's habeas corpus petition. The CSRT process is the mechanism Congress and the President set up to deal with these issues. Except in cases of undue delay, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant's habeas corpus petition at least until after the Department, acting via the CSRT, has had a chance to review his status."

Nowhere do they dispose of the CSRT process; except in cases of extreme delay, the majority holds that the CSRT process should run its course before a habeas hearing is scheduled.

In a more recent holding concerning some Uigurs, an appeals court gave two options: release or hold a new CSRT to answer the court's concerns. That appeals court didn't think that the CSRT process was ruled unconstitutional, and said it could be employed as a possible remedy.

The CSRT process might be overturned later; SCOTUS withheld judgment, but said, for now, it stands.