Please excuse the ignorance of the following questions from a non-attorney (me.)

1. Does this ruling give the Gitmo detainees the same rights as, say, OJ Simpson?

2. Does this ruling mean that if Executive-prisoners are detained on de facto and de jure territory that the United States does not control, they do not possess the right of habeas corpus?

3. Does this ruling extend the Constitutional rights enjoyed by US citizens to every citizen of the world?

4. Would the court have ruled this way if the petitioner were a prisoner rended by the US to a Romanian or Jordanian facility?

5. Does the ruling open the door for "obviously dangerous and guilty" prisoners to have their cases dismissed and be released into the world to saw heads off and blow up children at school based on legal transgressions committed by the Bush Administration?

MyBlog: <link>

I don't know the answer to most of the questions, but I suspect that the answer to #5 is that some "obviously dangerous and guilty" people will end up released. If that happens, I'm not going to blame the courts for that. I'm going to blame an Administration that decided that none of the rules applied to them because, mostly, they didn't want them to apply. They locked people up with little or no evidence, happily used evidence obtained by torture by other countries, quite likely condoned the use of torture by U.S. agents to get more evidence and the waited a full six years - six years! - to start trying the first person before the military commissions. It's appalling, not just because some innocents almost certainly got caught in the dragnet, but because the Administration likely has assured that there's no way to punish some of the people who actually deserve to be punished.

The majority opinion actually doesn't say much. Well, it says the words "We're not saying" a lot. We're not saying that Gitmo needs to be closed. We're not saying the president has no authority. We're not saying there's anything overall wrong with the system.

We're only saying that you've been holding these guys for 6 years against their will, and forcing them to abide by a rule that requires them to wait another year while they file the motions is pushes the bounds of the right to a speedy trial beyond what we can stand.

The answer to #5 is that it only opens the door to their release if the administration has no case. The ruling doesn't call for a release - it calls for a trial. As for 2 through 4, the court is pretty much saying that they're not ruling on anyone else - mostly just on this case right here.

One of the big myths perpetrated by this administration is that the rights of an accused as described in the bill of rights apply only to US citizens. That is false. By that I mean the rights against self-incrimination, no cruel or unusual punishment, speedy trial, etc.

Look at this way. If a non-citizen is in the US and is accused of a crime, the courts don't say, "Well, he's not a citizen, so the bill of rights don't apply. Take him outside and beat him with rubber hoses until he confesses."

No, anyone accused of crime under US law has the same rights as a defendent. So, the answer to queston #3 is that non-US citizens always had the same rights as a defendent.

the Bill of Rights applies anywhere in the world, to anyone the US happens to come across.

I would be willing to accept this, if every other country, radical group, etc believed and lived by the same Bill of Rights, applied the same way. Until then, the Bill of Rights, only applies to those commiting crimes in the US.

The Bill of Rights applies to those on US soil or under US jurisdiction.

Cheney was in a bit of a quantry of how to handle captured and suspected terrorists. He and Addington - current chief of staff and former legal counsel - have read the constitution and subsequently opened the prison base on GITMO, trying to get around the Section 9 "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

They argued before the SCOTUS that GITMO was in Cuba and its prisoners don't have constitutional protection. They lost that one.

jburd1:

the Bill of Rights applies anywhere in the world, to anyone the US happens to come across.

That's not what I said. Please reread:

The Bill of Rights applies to anyone accused by the US justice system. Not anywhere in the world, just those places that are under US jurisdiction.

Is that clear enough for you or should I try explaining it using hand puppets?

jburd1:

the Bill of Rights applies anywhere in the world, to anyone the US happens to come across.

I would be willing to accept this, if every other country, radical group, etc believed and lived by the same Bill of Rights, applied the same way. Until then, the Bill of Rights, only applies to those commiting crimes in the US.

The only way to lead the world there is by example. Saying that you won't because some others won't simply undermines and nullifies your own principles.

Well, if a prisoner is "obviously dangerous and guilty", there must be evidence of guilt, right? So he or she would definitely not be released to cause said damage. And if there is no evidence of guilt, then i guess you can't say it's obvious that they are dangerous.

1. NO. The only right addressed in the opinion was whether or not "[p]etitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus." The majority's answer: Yes.

2. No and Yes. See the companion case Munaf v. Geren, which basically answers the extraterritoriality question by looking to whether or not detainees are in the exclusive control of U.S. forces answering direcly to the president. The only distinction is that Munaf is a U.S. citizen, but CJ Roberts makes note that the habeas statute's plain language "applies to persons" held by the U.S. government even where the U.S. has neither de facto nor de jure sovereignty. Boumediene goes a step further, looking not at the habeas statute, but at the Constitution.

3. No and Yes. See my previous answer.

4. No. Once the person is rendered we've lost jurisdiction and no U.S. court would have before it a properly presented case.

5. No. If guilt is so "obvious" then the government should have no problem showing the habeas court that there is sufficient grounds to detain. The only "legal trangression" that would get any person a release prior to trial would be if the government had no sufficient legal grounds to detain in the first instance.

The only way to lead the world there is by example. Saying that you won't because some others won't simply undermines and nullifies your own principles.

weyhey1: You are correct in principal. However; We are fighting an enemy that we have never encountered before. We are fighting an enemy who's only goal is to destroy, by any means possible, our country and our way of live. On one hand if we play by the rules, best case scenario we will be fighting a long costly war. We fight by their rules (no rules, no holds barred) and the liberal nations of the world thinks us no better than the terrorists we are fighting, yet there is the very real possibility we will win and do so much quicker and less costly. I suspect (and it is only a guess) that the detainees in Guantanamo are being held in hopes that we can destroy their organization so that when and if we release them, they will be rendered relatively harmless. I am sure that there have been times when you "just knew in your heart" that there was something no quite right about a person you came into contact with. And sometimes your gut feelings were right, sometimes they were wrong and sometimes you didn't find out one way or the other. Perhaps at least some of these detainees fit that category. Perhaps no one actually caught them doing anything wrong, but when interviewed, the ranted radical Muslim beliefs and were with persons actually caught in the act. If this or something like this, is the case with these detainees, then I feel their indefinite detention is warranted. I don't know about you but I would not want them living in my state knowing that their belief is that I and my way of life are better off dead.