Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Detainees, Dismisses Padilla Case

[NATO AIR]

looks like a victory for the constitution, time for the gov't to prove these guys are guilty (which if it has the intelligence and the proof, it can do and i hope it does)

my mistake, i mean the supreme court SIDESTEPS, not dismisses the padilla case

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5316401/

Court: Terror suspects can challenge detentions
Guantanamo Bay ruling is blow to administration's war on terror

An inmate of Camp X-Ray at the U.S. Navy Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is escorted by two guards past other inmates in a March 15, 2002 file photo.

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 10:51 a.m. ET June 28, 2004WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held for more than two years at a U.S. military prison camp in Cuba may challenge their captivity in American courts, a major defeat for President Bush in one of the first major high court cases arising from the Sept. 11 attacks.



In related cases, the court ruled that an American citizen suspected of aiding the enemy can go to court to challenge his indefinite detention as an “enemy combatant” but declined to rule in a similar case involving an American suspected in a terrorist plot.

The 6-to-3 ruling in the Guantanamo case passed no judgment on the guilt or innocence of the approximately 600 foreign-born men held in the Navy-run prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The justices also did not address the broad issues of human rights and civil liberties surrounding the prisoners' seizure and detention without trial or guaranteed access to a lawyer.

Prisoners expected to appeal to federal court
For now, the high court said only that the men can take the first legal step in contesting U.S. authority to hold them.

The men can now presumably take their complaints to a U.S. federal judge, even though they are physically held beyond U.S. borders.

The court also ruled that while the administration has the power to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen suspected of aiding the enemy, without charges or trial, but that he has the right to challenge his treatment in court.

Separately, the justices dismissed a case involving American terror suspect Jose Padilla on a technicality and sent it back to a lower court.


Bush administration lawyers contend that Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was an al-Qaida operative who was planning a radiological "dirty bomb" attack in the United States at the time of his arrest two years ago as he returened to the United States from Afghanistan.

The Hamdi ruling did not fully address many hard questions raised by the case. Hamdi has been detained more than two years and only recentrly allowed to see a lawyer. His parents are Saudis and he was born in the United States.

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect, Jose Padilla, could go to court, saying a legal fight was a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

"We have no reason to doubt that courts faced with these sensitive matters will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.

The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.

The government says Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, where he was fighting alongside Taliban forces against U.S.-led coalition troops.

The ruling is the largest test so far of executive power in the post-Sept. 11 assault on terrorism.

MSNBC.com's Tom Curry and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[NATO AIR]

interesting bias note, if you compare CNN's to MSNBC, CNN doesn't say anything like "blow to administration's war on terror"


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/scotus.enemy.combatants.ap/index.html

A mixed verdict on the terror war
Rulings offer partial wins for White House, civil rights activists
Monday, June 28, 2004 Posted: 11:23 AM EDT (1523 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court delivered a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, ruling that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

The administration had sought a more clear-cut endorsement of its policies than it got. The White House had claimed broad authority to seize and hold potential terrorists or their protectors for as long as the president saw fit - and without interference from judges or lawyers.

In both cases, the ruling was 6-3, although the lineup of justices was different in the two decisions.

Ruling in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Congress did give the president authority to hold Hamdi, a four-justice plurality of the court said, but that does not cancel out the basic right to a day in court.

The court ruled similarly in the case of about 600 men born outside the United States and held indefinitely at a U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men can use American courts to contest their captivity and treatment, the high court said.

The Supreme Court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years.

Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court.

Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

"We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.

The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.

The ruling is the largest test so far of executive power in the post-September 11 assault on terrorism.

O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy in her view that Congress had authorized detentions such as Hamdi's in what she called very limited circumstances,

Congress voted shortly after the September 11 attacks to give the president significant authority to pursue terrorists, but Hamdi's lawyers said that authority did not extend to the indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges or trial.

Two other justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would have gone further and declared Hamdi's detention improper. Still, they joined O'Connor and the others to say that Hamdi, and by extension others who may be in his position, are entitled to their day in court.

Hamdi and Padilla are in military custody at a Navy brig in South Carolina. They have been interrogated repeatedly without lawyers present.

The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed.

The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision.

The case has additional resonance because of recent revelations that U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners and used harsh interrogation methods at a prison outside Baghdad. For some critics of the administration's security measures, the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison illustrated what might go wrong if the military and White House have unchecked authority over prisoners.

At oral arguments in the Padilla case in April, an administration lawyer assured the court that Americans abide by international treaties against torture, and that the president or the military would not allow even mild torture as a means to get information.

The cases are: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696) and Rumsfeld v. Padilla (03-1027).

 

[5stringJeff]

I fully support the right of any American citizen, regardless of whether they are terrorists or traitors (or both) to the same legal rights that any other citizen enjoys. American citizens should not be held indefinitely at Gitmo without trial or access to legal counsel.

 

[dmp]

I hope I'm not predicting the future:


"Dateline, WA DC,
1 year from now"


Terrorists today blew up the Capital building, with a radiological bomb. The leader of the group was one "Shav-yur Bush" - who was released 6 months ago from Guantanimo, under a court ruling. This fiasco is the fault of GWB's policy of letting suspected terrorists go"

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I fully support the right of any American citizen, regardless of whether they are terrorists or traitors (or both) to the same legal rights that any other citizen enjoys. American citizens should not be held indefinitely at Gitmo without trial or access to legal counsel.

I agree but yet I don't. Such a dilemma.

Here is my thought on the subject.

During the Revolutionary War we implemented a law that is still on our books today. It was death for treason, subversion, espionage, etc. The sentence was death and it was generally carried out very swiftly. Why? Because that way there was no time for "doubt" to creep into the minds of the nation. Doubt creates subversion and when people are plotting against our country, we have no time to f*ck around feeling their pain. If they get caught and the circumstances are evident enough, f*ck the trial and dispatch them quickly so as to send a message.

That is why the sentence was usually carried out swiftly.

 

[5stringJeff]

I agree that the death penalty is a proper sentence for those convicted of treason. But I still support the legal rights of an American citizen to a speedy trial and to legal access, a trial by jury of one's peers, and conviction of treason as defined in the Constitution. THEN we can fry the son of a bitch.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I agree that the death penalty is a proper sentence for those convicted of treason. But I still support the legal rights of an American citizen to a speedy trial and to legal access, a trial by jury of one's peers, and conviction of treason as defined in the Constitution. THEN we can fry the son of a bitch.

During war, treason is generally convicted by the military. Therefore, it is not a trial by one's peers. If an American citizen is found on fighting against American troops, then in my opinion he should be shot on the spot for treason. That is what would have happened at any other time in history. It is just that today we want to let the courts get involved instead of metting out justice as it was meant to be done.

 

[NATO AIR]

i agree with gop_jeff...

and this is what makes us different, a cut above the rest

this is why our gov't is the best, our rules are the best, our constitution carries so much weight around the world and in history, both in the past and in the future

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
During war, treason is generally convicted by the military. Therefore, it is not a trial by one's peers. If an American citizen is found on fighting against American troops, then in my opinion he should be shot on the spot for treason. That is what would have happened at any other time in history. It is just that today we want to let the courts get involved instead of metting out justice as it was meant to be done.

If he's caught in the act, I could see shooting someone on the spot. If the person is in the military, I certainly understand using military courts, or a court martial (which is still a trial by jury, just with different rules). With someone like Padilla or Hamdi... certainly some sticky legal questions. Are they part of a terrorist organization? Are they civilians or enemy soldiers? Or terrorists? Regardless, I think it is clearly against the Bill of Rights to hold someone indefinitely without trial. Either try him in civilian court, or, if the security implications are too great, a military tribunal. But holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely, terrorist or not, flies in the face of the Bill of Rights.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
If he's caught in the act, I could see shooting someone on the spot. If the person is in the military, I certainly understand using military courts, or a court martial (which is still a trial by jury, just with different rules). With someone like Padilla or Hamdi... certainly some sticky legal questions. Are they part of a terrorist organization? Are they civilians or enemy soldiers? Or terrorists? Regardless, I think it is clearly against the Bill of Rights to hold someone indefinitely without trial. Either try him in civilian court, or, if the security implications are too great, a military tribunal. But holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely, terrorist or not, flies in the face of the Bill of Rights.

Any citizen can be convicted of treason. On the battlefield, it is the battlefield commanders decision whether to carry out the sentence or not. Actually, if a US citizen is caugth fighting against the US on the battlefield, a field grade officer can convict and sentence him under treason laws. Treason laws do not just apply to the military.

Padilla was caught trying to carry out an attack against the US. He should have been hung immediately. The more you let stuff like this set, the more the cancer festers.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Any citizen can be convicted of treason. On the battlefield, it is the battlefield commanders decision whether to carry out the sentence or not. Actually, if a US citizen is caugth fighting against the US on the battlefield, a field grade officer can convict and sentence him under treason laws. Treason laws do not just apply to the military.

Padilla was caught trying to carry out an attack against the US. He should have been hung immediately. The more you let stuff like this set, the more the cancer festers.

padilla was 'caught' coming off a plane. the government had a tip that he was planning an attack. Hamdi was caught on the battlefield actively a member of a foreign fighting force. HUGE difference between the two.

 

[5stringJeff]

I agree with DK. Padilla was certainly planning something, but he was not caught in the act of anything. He should still be afforded a trial and convicted properly of treason, as the Constitution specifies.

 

[NATO AIR]

whatever Padilla was planning, there are serious legal issues involved with his being found guilty by a "legal" court

don't know if any are a fan of alan keyes, but i'll let him speak for me after he made a good point about this case a while back...his viewpoint but still a good one i believe
link
http://www.renewamerica.us/show/transcripts/02_06_12akims.htm

(alan keyes)
And now we're taking the polls where Americans have decided that, no, security's more important. We're not going to take any risks. We're not going to live in a world that has any margin of risks in order to hold to that freedom.

I think it's time we start thinking about this. And if you think that, no, we can trust them — that was what the gentleman was saying on my show last night — we get to — if we're not going to give credibility to the governments, what are we going to do?

You know, our founders, first of all, didn't say the government was to be trusted. It said government has to be watched. It is to be checked and balanced with safeguards, starting with the safeguards in due process that allow individuals to be free from the abuse of arbitrary power — power not checked by a fair process that allows you a proper defense against the charges brought against you

from slate magazine:

this is a good explanation from a former army officer's VP... the link between his op-ed and padilla is thus:

This torture of top al-Qaida leaders may also cause problems for the government were there to be a trial for the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. The tip that led to Padilla's initial detention on a material witness warrant in May 2002 came from intensive CIA interrogations of Zubaida, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. In December 2003, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Padilla be released from military custody and either charged in federal court or released. However, any prosecution of Padilla could be very problematic for the government, because the case for his guilt rests mostly (if not entirely) on secret interrogations of al-Qaida leaders, which now appear to have involved torture. If a criminal case is ever brought against Padilla, his lawyers are sure to challenge this crucial evidence on a number of grounds, including reliability and the fact that it was procured with torture in a way that "shocks the conscience."


http://slate.msn.com/id/2100543/
Tainted by Torture
How evidence obtained through coercion is undermining the legal war on terrorism.
By Phillip Carter
Updated Friday, May 14, 2004, at 3:47 PM PT


There are plenty of good reasons to avoid using torture in interrogations. It's an immoral and barbaric practice condemned by most Western nations and theological traditions, for starters. International human rights law and U.S. criminal law both outlaw it. And as if that's not enough, there is serious doubt as to whether torture even produces reliable intelligence, as Mark Bowden explains in the October 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Add this additional reason to the list: Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.

Thanks to a report in Wednesday's New York Times, we now know that the United States has intentionally used (with the sanction of the highest levels of government) torture tactics to pry open the mind of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, alleged to be one of al-Qaida's top masterminds. According to the Times, "C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described such tactics as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And the FBI has instructed its agents to steer clear of such coercive interrogation methods, for fear that their involvement might compromise testimony in future criminal cases.

So, setting aside for a moment all the moral, political, and practical problems of such tactics (staggering though these problems may be), as a purely legal matter, the use of torture during interrogation has so many negative consequences that it may ultimately allow some accused terrorists to win acquittals merely because it will lead to suppressed evidence of their factual guilt.

Evidence (such as a confession) gathered as a result of torturing a person like Mohammed will be excluded at his trial, if he ever sees one. This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.

Right now, the Justice Department has no plans to criminally prosecute Mohammed or other top al-Qaida leaders (like Abu Zubaida) currently being held by the United States in shadowy detention facilities overseas. But federal prosecutors have filed charges against alleged al-Qaida member Zacarias Moussaoui for being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. And the Supreme Court is now considering whether trials of some sort are constitutionally required for other alleged terrorists. Problems with the Moussaoui case reflect the problem with evidence obtained through coerced confessions. In that case, it's not the government that seeks to bring in the tortured al-Qaida leaders' out-of-court statements—it's Moussaoui, the defendant. However, the result may be the same. Such out-of-court statements will likely be challenged as hearsay by whatever side isn't trying to bring them into court. And under the applicable hearsay exception, for declarations against interest [see Rule 804 (b)(3)], such statements are only admissible if they carry certain indicia of reliability. Given the questionable ability of torture to produce reliable information, this will be a hotly contested issue. It's not clear whether this evidence will ever be admitted to court.

This torture of top al-Qaida leaders may also cause problems for the government were there to be a trial for the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. The tip that led to Padilla's initial detention on a material witness warrant in May 2002 came from intensive CIA interrogations of Zubaida, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. In December 2003, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Padilla be released from military custody and either charged in federal court or released. However, any prosecution of Padilla could be very problematic for the government, because the case for his guilt rests mostly (if not entirely) on secret interrogations of al-Qaida leaders, which now appear to have involved torture. If a criminal case is ever brought against Padilla, his lawyers are sure to challenge this crucial evidence on a number of grounds, including reliability and the fact that it was procured with torture in a way that "shocks the conscience."

Interestingly, such problems would not have arisen had these suspects been hauled before a military tribunal at the outset. The Pentagon's procedural rules for tribunals allow evidence to be admitted if it "would have probative value to a reasonable person." These rules contain no provision for the exclusion of involuntary statements, and on their face, do not allow the presiding officer of such tribunals to rely on Supreme Court precedent or federal case law to decide issues of evidence. Presumably, these tribunals were designed to allow for the admission of evidence from dubious circumstances, including the "intensive questioning" of Mohammed and Zubaida. So, if the Pentagon moves forward with its plans to try al-Qaida members before these courts, it may be able to evade this problem altogether.

However, even that won't solve the problem for the rest of the legal system, which only allows evidence obtained through constitutional means. By using torture to question the top terrorists it has in custody, the government has effectively sabotaged any future prosecutions of al-Qaida players—major and minor—that might depend on evidence gathered through those interrogations. It's plausible that skilled interrogation by the FBI, in accordance with American law, could have produced valuable evidence of these terrorists' guilt, which could have been used in court. But now that torture has been used, that may just be wishful hindsight.

As a nation, we still haven't clearly decided whether it's better to prosecute terrorists or pound them with artillery. But by torturing some of al-Qaida's leaders, we have completely undermined any efforts to do the former and irreversibly committed ourselves to a martial plan of justice. In the long run, this may be counterproductive, and it will show that we have compromised such liberal, democratic ideals like adherence to the rule of law to counter terrorism. Torture and tribunals do not help America show that it believes in the rule of law. But if CIA officials continue to use tactics that will get evidence thrown out of federal court, there will increasingly be no other option.


Phillip Carter is a former U.S. Army officer who now writes on legal and military affairs in Los Angeles.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so, you're saying that because some possibly illegal methods of interrogation were used, we shouldn't try padilla because it could come back to bite us in the ass concerning the interrogation techniques used to garner the information?

 

[NATO AIR]

no i'm not saying that... i would say those tactics could get the case thrown out in a real court if he ends up tried in a court of law in the US, not a tribunal. (his case was sidestepped for a snafu, he had his chain of command wrong in the legal brief). so they rolled the dice with this guy and it COULD cost the gov't its case against him in the future.

bad ideas usually come back to bite ya. this may come back to bite the gov't.

by the constitution and legal precedent, all the evidence they got from torturing the al-queda heads is inadmissable in court. what else do they have on this guy?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
no i'm not saying that... i would say those tactics could get the case thrown out in a real court if he ends up tried in a court of law in the US, not a tribunal. (his case was sidestepped for a snafu, he had his chain of command wrong in the legal brief). so they rolled the dice with this guy and it COULD cost the gov't its case against him in the future.

bad ideas usually come back to bite ya. this may come back to bite the gov't.

by the constitution and legal precedent, all the evidence they got from torturing the al-queda heads is inadmissable in court. what else do they have on this guy?

DoJ isn't saying much about concrete evidence as far as I know.

 

[NATO AIR]

that's what would concern me, all i've heard is the evidence from the al-queda guys. no physical evidence, nothing like that...and his lawyer seems supremely confident in the outcome of a US trial...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/

from that link (this at the bottom)

Padilla, for his part, has told interrogators that he never swore an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda and, after spending time in one of the terror group’s training camps, had second thoughts and wanted to return home. “He says he and his accomplice proposed the dirty-bomb plot only as a way to get out of Pakistan and avoid combat in Afghanistan, yet save face with Abu Zubaydah,” according to the Pentagon report. When he flew back to the United States in May 2002, Padilla has told interrogators he also had “no intention of carrying out the apartment-building operation,” the report states.

“Their reasons for labeling him an enemy combatant keep changing,” says Donna Newman, Padilla’s lawyer, about the new disclosures in the Pentagon report. The new information about the purposes of Padilla’s mission to the United States—apparently derived from interrogations with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—suggests that the Mobbs declaration may well have been “misleading,” she added.

As for the prospect that the Justice Department—in the event of a loss before the Supreme Court—will now bring conventional criminal charges against her client, Newman said she welcomed such a development. “We’ve always said we want our day in court,” she said.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
that's what would concern me, all i've heard is the evidence from the al-queda guys. no physical evidence, nothing like that...and his lawyer seems supremely confident in the outcome of a US trial...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/

from that link (this at the bottom)

Padilla, for his part, has told interrogators that he never swore an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda and, after spending time in one of the terror group’s training camps, had second thoughts and wanted to return home. “He says he and his accomplice proposed the dirty-bomb plot only as a way to get out of Pakistan and avoid combat in Afghanistan, yet save face with Abu Zubaydah,” according to the Pentagon report. When he flew back to the United States in May 2002, Padilla has told interrogators he also had “no intention of carrying out the apartment-building operation,” the report states.

“Their reasons for labeling him an enemy combatant keep changing,” says Donna Newman, Padilla’s lawyer, about the new disclosures in the Pentagon report. The new information about the purposes of Padilla’s mission to the United States—apparently derived from interrogations with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—suggests that the Mobbs declaration may well have been “misleading,” she added.

As for the prospect that the Justice Department—in the event of a loss before the Supreme Court—will now bring conventional criminal charges against her client, Newman said she welcomed such a development. “We’ve always said we want our day in court,” she said.

with all this in mind, isn't it a good thing that they didn't shoot him outright?

 

[NATO AIR]

they have not done that to anyone yet (right?)... if there's another big terrorist attack in the near future... who knows?

the rule of law has to survive though

 

[DKSuddeth]

I feel vindicated from earlier posts though, that gitmo, while in cuba, is still under the jurisdiction of the united states and therefore subject to the constitution and the courts.