Jun 12th, 2008
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 09:47am	Detention, National Security

Boumediene Decision: Gitmo Detainees Have Habeas Rights

This morning the Supreme Court announced its decision in Boumediene v. Bush, and it's a good one! SCOTUSBlog writes:

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantánamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” the individuals at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered by the District judges.

We'll have more once the decision is released. For some background on Guantánamo, Ben Wizner, Staff Attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project, wrote a great history of Gitmo as a prison and the court cases that surround it.

Remember this day: it's the beginning of the end for Guantánamo.

Permalink |	Detention, National Security

Tags: U.S. Supreme Court

1. Todd Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 11:48am

   Regarding the Supreme Court judgement in favor of the detainees rights in our civil courts. I hope the ghosts of all the brave souls who died on United Flight 93 haunt your miserable dreams every night for the rest of your pathetic lives. You are all scum, I wish you were dropped off in the middle of an Al Queda village, oh wait you'd be hailed as hero's there wouldn't you. We'll all sleep a bit less soundly knowing you've made our country a little less safe and secure, well may be not a little?

2. Jim Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 12:25pm

   Todd, you're an idiot. The rule of law is paramount. You should be on your knees thanking the ACLU and its work to protect you from government tyranny.

3. Jim Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 12:29pm

   Oh, and don't forget the innocent who have rotted in Guantanamo with no way to challenge their detention. If it was one of your family or loved ones kidnapped by the state you would be hailing the ACLU. Ignorant fool.

4. Mike Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 12:43pm

   Todd, do you even know who you're angry at?

   This is the Supreme Court's decision, based on the Constitution.

   Maybe you'd prefer a country without a judicial check on the Executive, or without a pesky Constitution guaranteeing basic rights?

   And in that case, you might be better suited to the 'Al Queda' village than the ACLU lawyers - no annoying rule of law there!

5. TINA Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 1:28pm

   YOU PEOPLE ARE THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS COUNTRY, I MEAN YOU ARE DESTROYING AMERICA.I WISH YOU ALL WOULD JUST MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE THIS ONE IS TOO MEAN AND NASTY FOR YOU. YOU DONT LOVE THIS COUNTRY ANYWAY YOU PIECES OF SHIT. JUST MOVE THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. WE DO NOT WANT ANY OF YOU ASSHOLES.. THINK ABOUT IT PLEASE

6. TINA Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 1:35pm

   IF ANYONE CARES OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHO I AM REFERRING IT IS ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACLU. THEY ARE FAR LEFT FREAKS WHO PUT US ALL RISK. THEY JUST HATE BUSH SO MUCH DO YOU REALLY THINK THE ACLU GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF US. THEIR HATE FOR BUSH IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THINKING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HEY ACLU, WE ALL KNOW IT TOO.

7. Pete Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 2:47pm

   "Bush administration's failed national security policies." Failed?? No attacks since 9/11. I wouldn't call that a failure. Also, "One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity." The first comment from the press release sounds pretty partisan to me. Let's face it, the ACLU is no longer about liberties, it's about lawyers. It's about wordsmithing and marketing to push an agenda. Sadly, there are unintended consequences.....Whoops, no problem. Send in more lawyers. I guess that is the beauty of the way the ACLU is structured. As an entity, it assumes no risk, it can then go ahead and sue the organizations that forcefully assumed tremendous risk as a result of ACLU action. Congratulations ladies and gentlemen of the ACLU. The Military is now going to unleash 800, very bad, highly skilled men on the world. But I guess it doesn't matter, your world is all about theory, not details.

8. Anonymous Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 3:49pm

   Todd, Tina, et. al:

   If you don't like the Constitution, move to Russia.

9. David Says:
   Jun 12th, 2008 at 4:25pm

   "The rule of law is paramount."

   No, Jim, the survival of our country and the safety of its citzens is paramount.
   And the "rule of law" does not apply to foreign enemies. This was a bad decision - constitutional rights do not apply to nonresident foreigners.

   "You should be on your knees thanking the ACLU and its work to protect you from government tyranny."
   What hyperbole. How is detaining FOREIGN COMBATANTS at an OVERSEAS LOCATION the same as "governemnt tyranny"?

   All of you are second-guessing, Bush-hating whiners. How about "thanks for keeping our country safe for 7 years".

10. ondelette Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 5:47pm

    I actually came here to ask about the 13,000 prisoners the U.S. is keeping in Afghanistan and the 21,000 it is keeping in Iraq. There are ten times as many prisoners being hidden from the ICRC in Afghanistan as there are total prisoners at GITMO.

    From what I read in the decision, the three part criteria for whether the prisoners have habeas rights, two of the three parts lean heavily on GITMO's special status. Does that mean the decision doesn't apply to the prison nation the U.S. created in Central Asia?

    Anyway, that was my question.

    I was somewhat unprepared for the anti-ACLU vitriol, especially from people who haven't discovered how to work the CAPS key on their computers. The ACLU protects your rights, even when you rail against them. Don't know what your problems are, but I do know that only cowards believe in destroying human dignity because they are afraid of terrorists. Cowards who are afraid of the rule of law. In other countries, they get their heads cracked to try to get freedoms like those the Supreme Court was upholding today, like those the people at ACLU and CCR go to work to preserve day in and day out. Here you accuse people of treachery for maintaining the system of rights we have. Cowards chose their own security over the principles the country was founded on, cowards quiver before little groups like al Qaeda, cowards abandon the rule of law to feel safe at someone else's expense.

11. Lincoln Campbell - Aberdeen, SD Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 5:50pm

    you idiots --

    do you really think that the supreme court decision means 800 "terrorists" will walk free? NO! It means they get their day in court! what a concept?! if they are really 'terrorists' then they will go to jail! if they are innocent (OMG YOU MEAN SOME MUSLIMS ARE NOT DANGEROUS, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE) then they get the hell out of guantanimo!

    These posts only prove how inept people are that attack the ACLU as anti-American, you can't think for yourselves or beyond the scope of a headline.

12. Redwoodhippie Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 6:26pm

    Thank you ACLU for helping to defend the Constituttion and our rights. Clearly some people never understood the reasons why this country was founded and why we are so lucky to have our Constitution and so unlucky to have neocon short sighted people in charge. Thank you Supreme Court justices for getting this one right even though just barely since the ruling was a 5 to 4 decision.

13. Anonymous Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 7:14pm

    lol, No in fact the constitution applies to citizens held on US territory -- Guantanamo (defacto sovereignty).

    Those who object to the constitution are Republican lemmings who swallow the "we are giving terrorists rights" line. Please educate yourselves so that in the future we can avoid Bushies.

    From the decision:

    "(a)
    Petitioners need not seek review of their CSRT determinations in the D. C. Circuit before proceeding with their habeas actions in the District Court. If these cases involved detainees held for only a short time while awaiting their CSRT determinations, or were it probable that the Court of Appeals could complete a prompt review of their applications, the case for requiring temporary abstention or exhaustion of alternative remedies would be much stronger. But these qualifications no longer pertain here. In some instances six years have elapsed without the judicial oversight that habeas corpus or an adequate substitute demands. To require these detainees to pursue the limited structure of DTA review before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay.This holding 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. 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. Pp. 64–67.

    (b)
    In effectuating today’s holding, certain accommodations— including channeling future cases to a single district court and requiring that court to use its discretion to accommodate to the greatest extent possible the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting sources and intelligence gathering methods—should be made to reduce the burden habeas proceedings will place on the military, without
    impermissibly diluting the writ’s protections. Pp. 67–68.

    In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. Pp. 68–70."

14. Jim Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 7:14pm

    lol, No in fact the constitution applies to citizens held on US territory -- Guantanamo (defacto sovereignty).

    Those who object to the constitution are Republican lemmings who swallow the "we are giving terrorists rights" line. Please educate yourselves so that in the future we can avoid Bushies.

    From the decision:

    "(a)
    Petitioners need not seek review of their CSRT determinations in the D. C. Circuit before proceeding with their habeas actions in the District Court. If these cases involved detainees held for only a short time while awaiting their CSRT determinations, or were it probable that the Court of Appeals could complete a prompt review of their applications, the case for requiring temporary abstention or exhaustion of alternative remedies would be much stronger. But these qualifications no longer pertain here. In some instances six years have elapsed without the judicial oversight that habeas corpus or an adequate substitute demands. To require these detainees to pursue the limited structure of DTA review before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay.This holding 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. 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. Pp. 64–67.

    (b)
    In effectuating today’s holding, certain accommodations— including channeling future cases to a single district court and requiring that court to use its discretion to accommodate to the greatest extent possible the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting sources and intelligence gathering methods—should be made to reduce the burden habeas proceedings will place on the military, without
    impermissibly diluting the writ’s protections. Pp. 67–68.

    In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. Pp. 68–70."

15. Anon Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 7:23pm

    "If you don’t like the Constitution, move to Russia."

    Exactly, you'll fit right in with Putin's lemmings. Then you wouldn't have to be bothered from organizations like the ACLU protecting civil liberties and keeping a check on the state. And just think about all the state controlled television you'd get to watch. I imagine 'Russian Idol' is a great show.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us '0 which is not a hashcash value.

16. Jeremy S. Sandrik Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 7:45pm

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

    ~Pastor Martin Niemoller, Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camp survivor

    What kind of America do you want in the future? When our soldiers are captured on the battlefield, would you prefer that their captors obey international law? What kind of example should America set as to how nations should conduct foreign policy? How long do we need to kneel to the politics and rhetoric of fear?

    Why is it that some people when they disagree about an issue resort to personal insults rather than a calm discussion of facts? Have we fallen that far? Are we that afraid of open discussion? Isn't that what democracy is supposed to embrace?

    Pete, you mention no attacks since 9/11. Shall we not, at least for a moment, consider the foreign policies carried out by this country that would engender such hatred? The CIA calls it blowback. The 9/11 Commission Report supports the idea that some of our foreign policy decisions are in part responsible for creating conditions worldwide that make extremist terrorism against the US attractive.

    Pete, I'm not sure where your 800 number comes from. There are roughly 275-300 detainees in Gitmo. Is this the attention to detail you speak of? Furthermore, this decision won't release them. The detainees now have the right to petition the court for a habeas corpus hearing. Detainees would still face trial. This is not a get out of jail free.

    It should be noted that Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, is a Reagan appointee.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

17. Pete Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 7:59pm

    Lincoln,

    Wake up and smell the concrete. The tactics employed by radical elements make no distinction between civillian and military targets. (yes, you are correct, not all Muslims) The entire terrorist campaign is a war crime because the laws of war don't apply. The "innocents" in Gitmo, as you say, were captured during battle in Afghanistan as individuals, not a regular military. No one wants them back, not even their countries of origin. You want them to get their day in court. Which court? Oh, you mean that smoking pile of rubble that was just blown up? 799 more trials to go.

18. Pete Says:
    Jun 12th, 2008 at 8:13pm

    "cowards quiver before little groups like al Qaeda, cowards abandon the rule of law to feel safe at someone else’s expense."

    Ondelette,

    Only a person that has never felt unsafe could make a comment like that. Do us all a favor, take a trip and witness a few large explosions. See it, feel it, hear it, taste it and smell it. Assuming you survive, come back and read that comment again and tell us how "principled" you are.

19. Mike Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 2:14am

    Could you imagine the absurdity of the Constitution not applying to non-citizens?

    It would mean that tourists could do whatever they like without fear of legal challenge -- and the government could do anything to them.

20. David Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 7:28am

    OK, I am curious about how the ACLU and its supporters would handle the following scenario:

    A group of Navy SEALS operating in the mountains of Afghanistan comes under sniper fire. One SEAL is wounded and another killed. The SEAL team identifies the house from where the fire is coming, surround it, and capture the shooter. He is not in a uniform. What should the SEALs do with him?

21. Jeffrey - Seattle, WA Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 9:54am

    I applaud this Supreme Court decision; it makes me proud to be an American again. I fervently disagree with David when he says the survival of our country and the safety of our citizens is more important than maintaining the rule of law. What has made America special is the bedrock of our republic - our Constitution and the principal that no one is above the law. People living in foreign lands have always seen America as a special beacon of freedom - because we base our society on the rule of law. Yes, we experience times when we have strayed from that guiding force but we have always seemed to return to this bedrock of our society.

    Yes, this decision may lead to dangerous people being released - that is the price all freedom loving people must pay to retain rights as free people - the right in this case not to be held indefinitely without access to a court to determine whether or not the person is rightfully being held.

    As to David's proposition that the rule of law does not apply to "foreign enemies" I say David needs to look more closely at our Constitution. Article ^ of the U.S. Constitution provides that the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under authority of the U.S. shall be the supreme law of the land. We have entered into numerous treaties, chief among which are the Geneva Conventions, establishing the rules of laws for "foreign enemies"; laws which this administration has blatantly ignored.

    This Supreme Court decision is at last a return to the core values of our country.

    As for David's comment that Bush's policies have kept us safe for seven years; keep in mind that when the World Trade Center was first bombed by terrorists in February of 1993 that we captured, tried, and convicted 4 of the terrorists in 1994; and captured, tried, and convicted 2 more of the terrorists, including the mastermind, in 1997. All foreign nationals, no torture involved, all tried in U.S. Courts, and there were no further terrorist actions by foreigners inside the U.S. until the events of 9/11 - more than 8 years later.

    There are ways using the rule of law to protect our country.

22. Anonymous Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 1:48pm

    Maybe some of you on both sides of the issue could take some time actually reading through the case and thinking through the issue, rather than just YELLING. This decision does not in fact "kick Bush's ass." All it does is say that our democratically elected Congress cannot put in place a system with which to deal equitably with prisoners held in GTMO in a way that does justice to the concern for national security. Instead, the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, can do so. Moreover, they have done so without specifying what those processes actually will be: they booted that back to the individual habeas judges. Finally, supporters of this decision should consider whether the rule of law is equivalent to the rule of Anthony Kennedy. But detractors should also realize that this isn't the end-all be-all of the issue and that they're probably better off that the Court has done this rather than a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president who would have felt compelled to institute a more liberal system than either the MCA or the system, whatever it is, put in place by this decision. Intelligence is not proven by yelling "ignorance" at the other side; such tactics tend to prove only one's own ignorance.

23. John Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 1:50pm

    Maybe some of you on both sides of the issue could take some time actually reading through the case and thinking through the issue, rather than just YELLING. This decision does not in fact "kick Bush's ass." All it does is say that our democratically elected Congress cannot put in place a system with which to deal equitably with prisoners held in GTMO in a way that does justice to the concern for national security. Instead, the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, can do so. Moreover, they have done so without specifying what those processes actually will be: they booted that back to the individual habeas judges. Finally, supporters of this decision should consider whether the rule of law is equivalent to the rule of Anthony Kennedy. But detractors should also realize that this isn't the end-all be-all of the issue and that they're probably better off that the Court has done this rather than a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president who would have felt compelled to institute a more liberal system than either the MCA or the system, whatever it is, put in place by this decision. Intelligence is not proven by yelling "ignorance" at the other side; such tactics tend to prove only one's own ignorance.

24. Andrew Williams Says:
    Jun 13th, 2008 at 5:33pm

    I am a former Navy JAG and I think I have some insight into these issues. The problem is not with military commissions, but with the way the commissions are being handled. The reason the Supreme Court ruled the way it ruled was that the habeas corpus right is designed to prevent indefinite detentions without a meaningful way to contest whether you are guilty or innocent.

    The Guantanamo commissions have multiple problems. First, the detainees are not allowed access to evidence that can lead to their innocence. Some of the detainees are held based completely or partially on their own confessions extracted under torture yet I suspect the detainees are not allowed to cross examine their torturers to get to the truth of the matter. Other evidence is similarly kept from them for "security purposes" although many of the reasons given appear to be to shield illegal behavior on the part of the government as much as it may be to shield national security. Second, there is substantial command influence over the detainees' trials. Prosecutors have quit, judges have been fired and all of this to obtain convictions according to well placed sources. It all sounds like a kangaroo court. I am offended by the way these matters were being handled.

    In regard to the question about how a Navy Seal is supposed to handle a non-uniformed shooter, the answer is you detain him, interrogate him (without torture) and then later put him on trial with a meaningful opportunity to show he is innocent not just a guy rounded up by accident or whatever. What you don't do is ship him to Syria or Egypt, break his ribs and lacerate his genitals and then try him on a confession obtained by these means.

    If you think I exaggerate about getting confessions in this way read some of the stories in the ACLU web page and the FOIA documents released. It is all well documented.

25. WF Tomba Says:
    Jun 14th, 2008 at 7:52pm

    Pete,

    "Only a person that has never felt unsafe could make a comment like that. Do us all a favor, take a trip and witness a few large explosions. See it, feel it, hear it, taste it and smell it. Assuming you survive, come back and read that comment again and tell us how “principled” you are."

    I feel unsafe every day. We are all unsafe. I agree with Ondelette that what you are advocating is cowardice--abandoning one's principles because standing up for them might be dangerous. Should we really be that afraid of "large explosions"? Do you think no one ever got blown up before 9/11? People have been in danger of explosions since the founding of this country. I don't see why now, all of a sudden, we should give up our principles just to make ourselves very slightly safer.

26. WF Tomba Says:
    Jun 14th, 2008 at 7:56pm

    David,

    "No, Jim, the survival of our country and the safety of its citzens is paramount."

    Terrorists don't threaten the survival of our country, and our safety would only be very slightly improved if all terrorists everywhere were instantly killed.

27. Pete Says:
    Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:54pm

    Once this kind of stuff starts happening on Broad Street in NYC, maybe you'll all cahnge your tune.

    Good luck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_PsyfHhEx4

28. Matt Says:
    Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:16am

    If by "rule of law," you mean, properly interpreting and applying the Constitution, then it doesn't take a terribly bright person to realize that the Boumediene decision does neither. Habeas rights simply do not apply to enemy combatants, regardless of where they're held, and they never have. Of course, the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court is wont to invent rights that don't exist in the name of self-congratulation for adhering to principal, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution or the rule of law. This is of course a philophosy shared by the good people of the ACLU - liberal self-satifaction masquerading as "protecting rights," rights which do not exist and are not threatened, if even if they did exist. But that's all that high minded liberalism really is to begin with, anyway. The majority decision is basically a lot of sophistry, although I'd be curious to see how many ACLU dolts actually read the dissents.

29. Dan Says:
    Jun 18th, 2008 at 7:40pm

    Todd,

    Adding an apostrophe does not make a noun plural.

30. Dave Says:
    Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:37pm

    Unfortunately, the Boumediene decision did not review and strike down the Military Commissions Act and the operations of the CSRT. With any luck, these will be repealed in the next Congress. Kangaroo courts are not a worthwhile new tradition to start in our country.
    The Constitution defines the limits on all branches of our government in relation to the rights of individuals. The Constitution provides the only authority for anything that the government does, wherever the government acts anywhere in the world. The authority of the Constitution to limit the government or permit it to act does not stop at our shores. Wherever the government is, there is our Constitution. If our government is in Guantanamo and secret (illegal) CIA prisons, then the Constitution applies to what the government may do there. The authority of Congress to approve or limit the acts of the Executive, and the courts to review the acts of the Executive, applies anywhere that the Executive asserts that it has authority to act and in relation to every act of the Executive. The Executive is nothing more than an officer of the Constitution, and absolutely bound by it.
    Justice Alito and others have expressed theories about the limited reach of the Constitution that do not stand up to logic. For example, if the Constitution does not apply outside the US, then how can a soldier be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying an order in a foreign country? The UCMJ is a statute enacted by Congress and signed by the President. Under Alito's theory, the UCMJ can only be applied to US soldiers while they are in the US. Similarly, per Alito, US diplomats cannot perform any lawful diplomatic actions outside the US because our government has no Constitutional authority to act through them while they are in foreign places. Similarly, the congressional resolution to respond to terrorism can only authorize actions of the government inside the US, since the Alito theory would not allow the Executive to act under the Constitution outside the US.

31. marlo Says:
    Jun 24th, 2008 at 7:10pm

    I wish that people could try to actually understand each others' point of view on matters like this. I'm admittedly rather ignorant about politics, war, and the like, but I can see that there are valid points to both sides...why does holding a strong conviction mean that one must hold disdain for another's point of view? Maybe there are good reasons that people think and feel the way they do - I am not rich (sorry, Wall Street being attacked wouldn't change my views) - I still believe in freedom, and that we can learn from those we would never expect, if we only listen.

32. wild Says:
    Jul 24th, 2008 at 3:44pm

    I Under the Authorization for Use of Military Force(AUMF), §2(a), 115 Stat. 224, note following 50 U. S. C.§1541 (2000 ed., Supp. V), the President is authorized “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by suchnations, organizations or persons.”

    boumediene v bush, june 2008 sites the above AUMF authorization, that being the authorization for ALL actions, detentions, and investigations, and movements of forces, hinged completely by those words of the AUMF. So then the true authorization specified, should be within the bounds of the specifically stated words of the AUMF, of actions as LIMITED AND RELATED to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11 2001. After six years of detention, full of various assaults, it is noteable and significant that the privilage of habeas corpus, has once again been set aside in the favor of the king & his jailers, as has the bounds of the AUMF. It seems to me, the court failed the basic foundation law:{AUMF}, in favor of the king & jailers as in times historic, obviously in complete disreguard for the law{AUMF}. "WE DO NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY TO DETAIN THESE PETITIONERS NOR DO WE HOLD THAT THE WRIT MUST ISSUE."
    By stating in the opening paragraphs of the opinion by Kennedy, noting the AUMF, and 'the suspension clause' and includes this one important sentance, neglected the true authority of the court, that the petitioners rightly sought to obtain. From the opinion "we do not address whether the President has authority to detain these petitioners nor do we hold that the writ must issue." the remainder of the opinion, though informative, is really nothing more than a smoke screen to keep the habeas corpus privilage, surpressed as in times past. The opinion fell so short of justice, and made certain, nothing to do with the habeas corpus privilage other than to further cloud the President & the jailers' cause. Why did the Court neglect the foundation law AUMF and the specification therein: "terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11 2001"? The true injustices made during this tyranny of the President & his jailers, are unsubstantiated accusation with detention, not based on the AUMF specifications as law. So then what good has this AUMF law, what is its purpose? If not to bring persons, organizations, or nations deemed by the President to bring the accusations of guilt for the terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11 2008, then this authorization does nothing. Furthermore the AUMF does not authorize the President to bring his forces to bear upon people, organizations, or nations that have not been hinged to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11 2001. It is as plain as day. Then there is the secondary part of the AUMF law reguarding harboring: "or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by suchnations, organizations or persons.” What cases have been brought to court, that have been positively hinged to the AUMF specification: "terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11 2001" that relate to harboring? There are none. Therefore the AUMF continues ineffectual and without purpose because the President & his jailers' & his forces have failed to bring a single prosecution to court, for judgement of anyone, organization, or nation with reguard to harboring, planning, authorizing, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September, 11 2001.

33. Sidi Says:
    Aug 3rd, 2008 at 5:29pm

    I agree that all held in captivity should be given their day in court. Confessions extracted under torture hold about as much water as an empty glass. Torture me and i will tell you anything you want to hear to end the violence. Convictions based on that are a joke. I know the UK, where i live, have their own problems but this is a step in the right direction towards improving the image of your country as a whole.

    Some people that have posted here disagreeing with the decision need to pack up and move to either cold war germany or north korea where the government WILL take care of you and not ask questions. End of rant...

34. wild Says:
    Aug 7th, 2008 at 12:59pm

    partially answering my own question above, the ACLU warned and has asked the similar question of congress, much earlier than I, 9-13-2002 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17027leg20020913.html
    or search ACLU: Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    wild