ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by msg - 5 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 15 minutes ago

   Invasion?  What do they call 911?!

2. Posted by UM - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

   I guess they call it a terrorist attack.  A sneaky and terrible crime.  But obviously not an invasion.

3. Posted by ABC - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

   Liberal judges doing what they do. Since this decision will potentially endanger American lives (Obama likes this decision), it will help John McCain in November.

4. Posted by XYZ - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 43 minutes ago

   I agree that it is liberal judges doing what they do, which is getting it right more often than not.

5. Posted by Lawrence D. Mandel - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 3 minutes ago

   ABA President Neukom does not speak for me.  Rather, his statements are an embarrassment.  This ruling is outrageous.  It puts the safety of my family at risk.  It also puts our brave men and women of the armed forces who are putting their lives on the line every day to protect us at risk and grants rights to enemy combatants (in this case, terrorists) who have no such rights and never in our history had such rights.  I had no idea that the ABA was so out of touch with the law and our constitution.  I am wondering now why I am a member.

6. Posted by Concerned Citizen - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours ago

   I’m glad to see that people of non-US citizenship are quickly gaining more rights than citizens.  We should just shutter the White House and tell everyone on the hill to go home, and hand the keys to the US over to the UN.  It’s a dark day when people who would attack and kill our citizens and soldiers get the same rights as those they are trying to kill.  By why be surprised - If I fail to pay my taxes I go to jail, have my paycheck seized and my belonging sold at auction; if an illegal alien doesn’t pay taxes, they get free health care and schooling.  Makes sense.

7. Posted by John G - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 58 minutes ago

   It’s nice to see that 5 of 9 judges have some understanding of the meaning of the rule of law.  That the other 4 do not is very scary.  We are not talking about rights on a battlefield, here. We are talking about people held in a non-combattant zone in the full control of a country with ample time to adjudicate. 

   That is aside altogether from the ludicrous non-legal title of “enemy combattants” who are not given the rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

   Guanatamo has been a definitive one-word rebuttal - available in all the languages of the world - to all American efforts, including the ABA’s, to promote the rule of law in the world. Why should anyone believe what an American says about the rule of law, given Guantanamo?

   The ABA’s president recogizes this, fortunately for his ongoing campaign for rule of law.  Such a campaign, like so many others, needs to start at home.

8. Posted by Cindy - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 53 minutes ago

   I’m proud of this decision.  America’s core values should not be trampled on and should be shown to the world.  By torturing and locking people up we are only giving the terrorists more amo.  Justice does not live in secret prison camps and this decision will assist American justice to come back into the light.

9. Posted by associate - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes ago

   Here’s the rub.

   The attacks on the US mainland and our embassies are done by a loose group of like minded people.  If they had a country, it would be an invasion.  So, if we give them one solitary building and the land it sits one (1 acre)  and declare it sovereign ground, is it now an invasion?

   The only thing keeping this from being a true war in the classical sense is the fact that the enemy refuses to wear uniforms, hides among innocent populations, and will not accord our soldiers their rights under the Geneva convention.  I don’t really understand why we are bound to go beyond the Geneva convention and confer US citizen rights on them, when they refuse to even declare that they’re fighting for someone.  You know they’re getting money from Iran, Syria and others.  So why aren’t they soldiers of those countries by definition?  I guess it’s because political correctness keeps us from calling a soldier a soldier these days.  Things would probably be much simpler if everyone would just accept that we’re at war, and not with some shady, undefinable enemy.

   I’m not advocating invading anyone, but refusal to recognize reality has never served anyone well.

10. Posted by Kathleen B - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Roosevelt was right.  Fear is an emotion that overpowers logic.  There has been too much shallow thinking and knee jerking in the past six and one half years.  It continues to amaze me how highly educated people with ample training in rational thought get sidetracked by fear mongering.  We have surrendered our commitment to some fundamental values since 9/11.  We have many options and they go far beyond conservative and liberal labels. Let’s continue thoughtful discussion of these issues.

11. Posted by interested - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes ago

    For those people who are quick to jump on the “core values” bandwagon and cheer this decision, I would suggest either taking a national security law course (if in law school) or find the time to audit one for CLE credit. This issue is not as black and white as uninformed people would have you believe. There are serious security concerns just as there are serious civil liberty concerns. Balancing the two is the hard part, and this decision doesn’t necessarily do that.

12. Posted by not a liberal idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 16 minutes ago

    The only mistake that the US made here was taking these terrorists to a US military base.  We should have kept them holed up in some amazingly-secure work camp in Iraq so that they could slowly die.  I have always been embarrassed by the ABA and their comments on this issue further solidify my embarrassment.  In my opinion, there is no treatment that is too harsh for these people.  I think that waterboarding should be a reward that is granted for compliance.  This country is collapsing under the weight of liberal judges and left-wing moon bats who are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than those of the innocents who die at their hands. 

    So to solve the problem:
    a) evacuate Club Gitmo and move the terrorists to an undisclosed location on NON-US soil;
    b) hold trials in secrecy using military tribunals; and
    c) summarily execute those that are found guilty. 

    a) evacuate Club Gitmo and more the terrorists to an undisclosed location on NON-US soil;
    b) try them in secrecy using military tribunals; and
    c) summarily execute those that are found guilty.

13. Posted by former military - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 44 minutes ago

    losing basic rights makes sense in dealing with terrorists when there is an immediate threat.  At this point, these alledged terrorists have been held for years.  Affording them a limited right of habeas review does NOT threaten our security.  The military and other government agencies are quite experienced and good at getting information, extreme tactics make sense in a war setting when the intelligence is needed immediately.  All of the justifications for denying all rights to a limited habeas review no longer exist; now we are just being petty.  The majority opinion merely reaffirms our trust in the judicial system.

14. Posted by liberal but no idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 37 minutes ago

    Once again, this administation has gotten its butt kicked because it tried to play by its own rules.  If they had simply said that the detainees were prisoners of war (and allowed the Geneva Conevntions to apply), habeus corpus would not have been an issue as they could have detained such POWs until “the war” ended.  Moreover, they could still have interrogated them as POWs, just as was done during World War II.  Instead, they tried to be too clever for its own good,  did an end run around the Geneva Conevntions, and thought it would work if they used an offshore military base.  Now, they will have to defend against dozens, if not hundreds, of these habeus corpus suits.

15. Posted by 7b - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Might I remind all of the above poster decrying this decision that the individuals held at Guantanamo have not been found guilty of any crime. There has been one… ONE conviction (an Australian who plead guilty and received 9 months). The vast majority have not even been charged. In fact, This decision does not “let them go”, but merely brings judicial oversight that has been woefully lacking until now.

    Learn the facts before developing your arguments. There is no place for your fear-mongering here.

16. Posted by Sarah - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 21 minutes ago

    Punish them if they are guilty! Why are people assuming that the people caught, tortured, and dehumanized are guilty of the crime. Where is the evidence, who has the evidence, why is not the evidence presented to the public? Is it enough evidence that the prisoners are Muslims and is that why people feel that they should rot in prison? I am proud that the ABA recognizes the importance of protecting a fundamental human right, freedom. I hail the Supreme Court for reaching a decision that honors the spirit of our Constitution.

17. Posted by interested - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 17 minutes ago

    former military - the article noted that “The [current] law was intended to give detainees more limited review that traditional habeas procedures . . . ,“ so they already had a limited right of habeas review. The decision rules against that law and provides for a traditional habeas proceeding in federal court. The different applications of rules of evidence, procedure, etc. MIGHT open the door to security concerns. Google “lawfare” as well.

    Liberal but no idiot - agreed, the administration could have traded on the unity after 9/11 to have congress pass all kinds of measures to allow for almost the same kind of interrogation and detention regime that the administration wanted. Instead, they clung to expanding executive powers. However, there wan’t a lack of precedent during previous wars to completely deter the admin from errantly taking that road.

18. Posted by It's Hot Out Here - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Thank God!  Surely now the Supreme Court Building will be the last federal office builing hit by terrorists.  We can keep living in our bubble thinking our justice system should be available to people who cut people’s heads off on video and whose religion specifically states convert or die.  Does anybody really think the terrorists need more ammo!?  What? Do you think this is some political debate, they want us dead.

19. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 11 minutes ago

    I agree that terrorists are similar to historical pirates in that they are “extra-national” criminals.
    However, Rule of Law means NOTHING without writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum and right of appeal.
    America is supposed to be different from—even better than—most other nations because this country has a greater respect for individual civil and human rights.
    Justice Scalia weakens his argument by overstating his argument and the consequences of this decision.
    While some detainees who have already been released have returned to the battlefield, that does not mean that the state should not have a case, make its case, and be willing to have that case proceed through the courts and be subject to review.
    There must be adequate prisoner protections. Even pirates and terrorists must have certain rights (to present exculpatory evidence, to not be tortured) or the whole tribunal is a grim farce and the whole justice system is corrupted and debased.

20. Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Most of the above posters assume that every single ione of those held at Guantanamo Bay IS an “enemy combatant,“ simply on the say-so of Bush’s administration—which has gotten that wrong hundreds of times before.  The proof = the 800 or so Gitmo prisoners that have been released, months or years after incarceration, since 2001.  Many of those remaining there were not “captured on a battlefield,“ but were ordinary Joes sold out by their neighbors in provincial Afghanistan to satisfy a grudge, avoid payment of debts, or to collect the large bounties that out troops offered early on for “terrorists.“  That is what our constitution requires.  That is what every single common law nation has required since the Magna Carta was signed. 

    If the government can meet its burdens of showing cause why these prisoners are being held, on an individual basis, according to the laws governing habeas corpus proceedings in our courts, then let it do so, and let them be tried and, if convicted, let them rot in prison.  If not, let them go.  This is a difficult concept only to those who think that the Constitution is optional, rather than the bedrock of our society.

    During a Vietnam War post-battle press briefing, General William Westmoreland famously noted: “It was neccessary to destroy the village in order to save it.“  Thank goodness a majority of our Supreme Court is unwilling to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

21. Posted by amazed - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 42 minutes ago

    I am amazed by the number of people who want to give non-citizens the rights guaranteed by a constitution and a country they want to destroy.  Why not give them social security benefits and a free education at MIT why we’re out it.  Political Correctness has been running amuck for far too long.

22. Posted by not a liberal idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 25 minutes ago

    Now if you are very quiet… you can hear ANDY THE LAWYER wringing his hands.  Better put a Band-Aid on the ol’ heart ANDY, it seems to be bleeding quite a bit. 

    I bet if ANDY THE LAWYER was personally impacted by 911, he would have more common sense and not be so oblivious as to what is riding on the fight against terrorism. 

    I think it is quite comical when people like ANDY quote General William Westmoreland when (to those of us with common sense), ANDY sounds like he lives his life quoting Neville Chamberlain.

    And I am sure that the “Celebrate Diversity” crowd will see it fit to trash me over this posting, as those hypocrites only celebrate diverse opinions when they happen to align with their distorted view of the world.

23. Posted by Bob in Juno - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago

    For a long time, I have been ashamed of our Supreme Court.  Especially since the decision regarding the Gore/Bush recount in Florida.  And I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, a lawyer, who holds the rule of law in high esteem.  The Boumediene decision, finally, imparts a measure of respect to our judiciary and it’s willingness to rein in the excesses of the executive branch.  It’s what balance of power is all about.  The “war on terrorism” is a sham to hide the fact that U.S. policies abroad (and the actions of U.S.-based businesses) cand and do cause real harm, that lead to real anger and real violence.  The only remarkable thing about 9/11 was that it occurred on U.S. soil, it was tremendously destructive, and it was very successful.  Acts of terrorism by those too weak to have standing armies to invade the U.S., to sanction us for their perceived “crimes committed in the name of commerce” in other countries, are predictable, and have been going on for centuries.  If one were writing the history of the American Revolution from a British perspective, one could easily identify episodes that would meet current definitions of “terrorism.“  War is terrorism.  I do not endorse violence or terrorism.  Violence begets violence.  Someone has to have the moral courage to say “stop.“  This decision is a possible beginning for the U.S. to be a leader in non-violent dispute resolution, and peace, instead of it’s current position as a world leader in violence and war-mongering.

24. Posted by Todd Rainer - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 1 minute ago

    I am NOT afraid of terrorists.  At worst they can take lives and destroy infrastructure.  The politicians in DC are more dangerous to the United States than any nutjob with a bomb will ever be.  The so-called “patriot” act has done more damage to the Constitution than terrorists have ever done.
    The country is NOT collapsing under the weight of “liberal” judges; it is collapsing under the weight of the fear mongering spread by the power hungry.  “Not a Liberal Idiot” holds that we should summarily execute prisoners.  Great, sounds a lot like Nazi Germany to me, dude.
    Habeas rights ARE a core value and claiming otherwise simply indicates that one has no knowledge of history.  You cannot simply redefine someone and keep them incommunicado like this administration has tried to do.  Either these people are criminals who have certain rights, or they are prisoners of war who have certain other rights.  PICK ONE!  Me?  I consider terrorists criminals.  But the point of treating someone like a criminal is to determine if they actually ARE a criminal.  Instead, we simply warehouse hundreds who we SUSPECT are guilty and never give them a chance to clear their names.  THAT my friend is as UNAMERICAN as you can get.
    As a former military interrogator I will tell you that the whole waterboarding issue is a distraction.  Those who are truly important to intelligence gathering will not be making it to GITMO, no they will be in one of those super-secret locations having bad things done to them. 
    This problem does not stem from one guy and his camel.  This problem stems from policies dating back to the British Colonial period and the Cold War.  Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said that we shouldn’t get involved in the affairs of foreign nations?  He was right, but here we are, nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Something we have never been very good at.  When the United States stops supporting “the enemy of my enemy” no matter how scumy that person/entity is, and if we’re not embarrassed about supporting dictators and despots, we bloody well should be!
    Americans need to realize that a man with bomb is a danger only to a few, but a man with a pen and an agenda can destroy this country.  But of course, we’re too caught up with who will be the next American Idol or what Britney/Paris/whoever is doing to actually be concerned with something real.

25. Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 59 minutes ago

    “Not a liberal idiot” is only half right.  He’s not a liberal. 

    Nor am I.  Like all real conservatives, I want to conserve our fundamental values.  They’re enshrined in the Constitution, and they’re more important than jailing people who aren’t terrorists along with people who are.

    “Not a” needs to reconsider his weepy-whiny panic in the face of terrorism.  The better response is to figure out who the actual terrorists are and punish them, and to let those we’re holding who are not terrorists go.  Otherwise, we’re no better than the savage dictatorships backing those who attacked, and attack, us.

26. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

    “Andy the Lawyer” at least makes an argument without ad hominem attacks.  “not a liberal idiot” needs to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.  If you get your talking points from O’Reilly, that is a difficult task, indeed.

27. Posted by David - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 11 minutes ago

    The level of fear reflected in some of these comments is what is truly frightening.
    All the Supreme Court decided was that these detainees are entitled to a hearing.  No one is being released.  No one’s lives have been put at risk.  The burden has been put on the government to show that these people it has locked up as enemy combatants are actually enemy combatants.  That’s all.  If they are, then there they remain.  If they are not, they should not be there.
    The commenters objecting to the decision seem to do so on the basis that they assume the detainees are guilty because the government incarcerated them.  Yet, according to an article in the Fall 2007 issue of Litigation, officials of the government have cleared some of the detainees but still refuse to release them. 
    Just because our security has been threatened is no reason to think the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants in the name of fighting terrorism.  Government can also threaten our liberty and freedom.  Most people accept now that the Alien and Sedition Acts and the internment of Japanese nationals during World War II were wrong, however much fear seemed to justify it at the time.
    You can argue the fine points all you want, but for our government to go around the world seizing people and claiming the right to hold them forever without having to justify its decisions or subject to meaningful oversight is wrong.

28. Posted by amazed - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Why does it never stop amazing me how so many people in this country blame terrorism on our government and its policies and US businesses.  Yet, these same people are the ones that want us to go “help” those in Rwanda.  These same people don’t want us interfering in world affairs, yet we should support the UN (another corrupt organization).  So many liberals today do not like the policies of the President because their golden boy Al “I know how to save the planet and invented the internet” Gore lost.  If it was Gore making these same policies, he’d be some sort of genius.  However, I do agree that we should stay out of the affairs of other countries.  We shouldn’t interfere with the manufacturing in China by not allowing products from communist China, a major world polluter, into this country.  We shouldn’t send aid to places like China and Indonesia and Africa.  We should take care of our own.  The problem is that the mere existence of the US is cause for muslims to hate us - they hate us because of our freedoms and, for better or for worse, what our society has become.  No matter what we do, they hate us.  And that’s the bottom line.

29. Posted by Tom - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 52 minutes ago

    Has anyone noticed that every media report of this decision (including this one) refers to this ruling as “a loss for the Bush administration”? How about a loss for America? Bush’s term is over in a few months, but the American people have to live with the consequences of this decision for a long time to come.

30. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

    “Why does it never stop amazing me how so many people in this country blame terrorism on our government and its policies and US businesses.”
    First, it is not a matter of “blame.”  It is a matter of “cause and effect.”  If we support regimes that oppress people, we identify with those regimes.  America provide millions in aid to Israel and those who launch terrorist acts against America, rightly or wrongly, believe that America is responsible for Israeli policies.  Americans must decide if what they get for the aid provided to the Saudis and the Israelis is worth the risk involved.  To date, our leaders have decided that what we gain is worth the risks.  It is just silly to say, “They hate us for our freedoms” when they have been clear all along that they hate us for our policies and intervention in their affairs and their acts of terrorism are calculated to have America withdraw from their affairs. 

    “These same people don’t want us interfering in world affairs, yet we should support the UN (another corrupt organization).” 
    Let us be clear: We supported and do support the UN because the UN has been very successful in its primary goal, which is and has ever been to prevent a third world war which quite likely would be a nuclear holocaust.  The countries which founded the UN, including the US, never thought it would end all wars – that fanciful hope died with the League of Nations.  People who today decry the UN are like folks who forget why it was founded and by whom (people who had experienced two world wars).  The value of the UN is demonstrated by our never having to fight a third world war despite forty years of cold war.

31. Posted by R - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Last I heard, Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion) wasn’t a liberal-activist pinko Osama-loving Obama-loving defeatist terrorist-sympathizing judge.

    Is it asking too much for ATTORNEYS to actually READ THE OPINION before making gratuitous, ad hominem attacks on the majority? (And the minority, for that matter.)

32. Posted by Douglas - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

    What troubles me, aside from the constitutional concerns that have been pointed out by others already, are the potential practical problems of holding these habeas proceedings. Are we going to pull officers and soldiers off of the field to bring them to these trials? Are military secrets going to be revealed? What about situtations where the capturing soldier or commanders have been killed by the detainee’s fellow combatants, do we let the combatant go then? Not to mention the staleness problems in some of these cases. I have little doubt that these proceedings will make us less safe and bolster the moral of our enemies.

33. Posted by BG - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

    How does giving individuals a right to be heard and present the reasons why they may have been falsely imprisoned to a neutral judge (or panel) put our safety at risk?  I think the opposite is true. 

    I can see the argument that it costs taxpayers money, but affording individuals basic freedoms greatly outweighs any of the nominal costs.  How much does it cost to keep them in Guantanamo indefinitely?

    I agree with those pointing out that emotion and fear, not reason or law, seem to be motivating those who are outraged at this decision. 

    I agree with the principle that our judicial system must do more to protect against false positives.  Affording these alleged terrorists habeas rights works toward that goal, and does little to “hurt” us in the process.  It also establishes executive branch accountability, which has been virtually absent since 9/11.

34. Posted by Not a Liberal Idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

    While ANDY THE LAWYER and PAUL are busy reading DAILY KOS and listening to NPR, isn’t it amazing how people like them just hate this country?  So we should side with the people that blow up women and children in Tel Aviv restaurants instead of the people that the kill the terrorist attackers.  And why are the liberal moonbat left soooo antisemetic?  It is astounding how much they hate Israel.  Hummmmm…. who else hates Israel?  And why?  Is it because Israel is the only democracy in the mid-east?  Maybe it is because they do crazy things… like let women vote… and not wear burkas. 

    Oh my, I hope that this posting is not considered to be an ad hominem attack.

    And I love the way that ANDY THE LAWYER considers the brave people who go after the terrorists to be in a “weepy-whiny panic in the face of terrorism”.  Huh?  So if you are brave enough to act, you are in a weepy-whiny panic?  That just make so much sense.  I guess if we all just give the terrorists a big hug, it will all be okay.  Or maybe we can all turn Muslim and practice Sharia law… then the terrorists would love us.  I am sure that ANDY would be willing to capitulate in any manner that the aggressors deem worthy It sounds like ANDY THE LAWYER designed France’s plans to stand up against the Nazis.

    Oh… and the UN prevented WWIII?  Your ignorance is truly boundless.  Just when I think that you wrote the silliest thing ever… you keep on typing.  The reason that there was not a WWIII is because of brave people like JFK (who stood up during the Cuban Missile Crisis) and Ronald Regan (who bankrupt the Soviet Union).  Leaders with spines shut down the Red Machine… not spineless apologist moonbats like Jimmy Carter.

35. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 14 minutes ago

    “Not a Liberal Idiot” has found the O’Reilly book of debate to have liberated him from the onerous restrictions of logic and polite discourse. 
    It is so much easier to debate by misstating one’s opponent’s position, then attack that along with the opponent’s motives, intelligence and character.
    It must be one heck of a law school that teaches this approach—if the “Idiot” even graduated from a law school.

36. Posted by Oligarchy Rules - 5 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 9 minutes ago

    So, here is yet another example of the oligarchy taking control.  The 5 justices who issued this decision trumped BOTH Congress and the President on an issue of national defense.  This they did AFTER advising both of those branches to craft a mechanism to give the “detainees” limited rights.  Now, they decide that enemy combatants on foreign soil have a constitutionally protected right of h.c.  In reaching this extraordinary conclusion, they even trampled on prior precedent, as well as centuries of common law.  Oh well, no matter.  I’m sure the FIve “feel” good about their decision.  Now, the circus has come to town and they won’t be around to manage the 3 rings that will begin in light of their ridiculous opinion.

    As Justice Scalia said, our nation will, indeed, live to regret this decision.  Not only for what it has done to our ability to defend ourselves in times of war, but also because the court, including this one, continue to legislate from the bench to such an extent that the u.s.constitution and state laws become merely suggestions in judges hands.  At some point, there will be a major backlash against this continuing judicial activism.  The ABA should be ashamed for endorsing such a blatant violation of the rule of law.

37. Posted by Arby - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 54 minutes ago

    Interesting how any result that you disagree with becomes judicial legislation.  A literal reading of the words “Rebellion or Invasion” is making the constitution “merely a suggestion in judges hands”?  It seems that Scalia and his supporters are the ones gulity of inconsistency in regard to their supposed loyalty to original intent.

38. Posted by Not a Liberal Idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 49 minutes ago

    Well let’s see:

    Not a Liberal Idiot:
    Huge Multinational Law Firm;
    Partner;
    Making Lots of Money;
    Seven Figure Book of Business;
    Keeping Many Associates Busy.

    Paul:
    Moonbat

    So yes… I am a lawyer.  And I am sure that I am better and much more successful than you.  Now go to court and be some pedophile’s public defender and write letters on behalf of your hero Barak Hussein Obama!

39. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 9 minutes ago

    “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,“ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, warning that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.“

    “Everyone hopes he’s wrong, of course. But if the only thing that mattered were security, why would we bother to have an independent judiciary? Why would there be any constitutional or legal guarantees of due process for anyone? We could just lock up anyone who fit the demographic profile of the average armed robber, say, or anyone with psychological traits often displayed by embezzlers. “

    —Eugene Robinson

40. Posted by Paul - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 7 minutes ago

    Not a Liberal Idiot—uh huh, sure you are.

41. Posted by Not a Liberal Idiot - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 28 minutes ago

    It is funny.  In light of the fact that my last post was removed, I guess the Terrorists at Club Gitmo have a right to be heard… but not me.  I guess that is what happens when you make fun of liberals on the ABA’s website. 

    Oh well.  I guess we can sum it up by saying that I am sure that a portion of my salary is used to subsidize PAUL’S Earned Income Tax Credit

42. Posted by RES - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 20 hours, 35 minutes ago

    I suppose requiring due process for bank robbers puts our deposits at risk.  And due process for murderers and rapists puts everyone at risk.  In this sense, yes, allowing habeus rights to suspected terrorists DOES put lives at risk.

    But then, I suppose that our founders decided that these risks, however great they may be, did not outweigh the liberty interest guaranteed by such process.  This seems to be what the Supreme Court upheld here. 

    As one great Enlightenment thinker said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.“  And as another great Enlightenment thinker said, “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.“  So, NOT A LIBERAL (the remainder of your name is quite doubtful), though you certainly have every right to your beliefs and your statements, you deserve neither liberty nor safety… the same cannot be said for those bein held without charges!

43. Posted by Concerned Citizen - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

    I can agree that no American citizen should have to give up their freedoms, but nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain why those right should be extended to non-American citizens.  The supreme court today took a dangerous step to extending the freedoms we enjoy to those who have no right to it - those that have not earned it nor are entitled to it.  The Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from its own government.  It was not created to give aid and shelter to those that would seek to destroy it.  We as American citizens have the right to bear arms, but we have not extended that right to non-citizens.  Is that next?  Should we let the rest of the world come over here and vote in our presidential election?  (I bet Obama would love that).  Where does it end?  It should be a simple, bright line rule - If you are an American citizen, Constitutionally protected rights cannot be taken from you; if you are not an American citizen, the Constitution does not apply.

44. Posted by RES - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 19 hours, 56 minutes ago

    OK, Concerned Citizen, how about this?  Our government is one of enumerated powers.  Outside of such granted authority, it is absolutely impotent.  Article I, section 9 of our Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus except when “in Cases of of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.“  Article II does not grant the Executive any power to detain anyone, citizen or non-citizen, without due process of law, nor can Congress grant any such power to the Executive, since it has no such power itself.  Furthermore, nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted the power to do what it will to non-citizens, nor is the prohibition on suspending Habeus Corpus limited solely to citizens.  Thus, our government has NO POWER to indefinitely detain ANY PERSON without due process.

45. Posted by Concerned Citizen - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 19 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Maybe you need to go back to the preamble:

    We the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Note that it does not say “to ourselves and the rest of the world.“  I prefer to interpret laws and doctrines as a whole, not piecemeal.

46. Posted by RES - 5 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 59 minutes ago

    Granted.  But which is the more perfect Union?  One that ensures the Blessings of Liberty only to its own, or seeks to share those Blessings with any under its jurisdiction, whether permanently or temporarily, by choice or force?  Furthermore, does engendering fear and resentment from the rest of the world, based on our treatment of those held by our government, secure those Blessings?  I think not… though you may well disagree. 

    The real issue arises from the fact that when our government exerts powers not granted to it under our Constitution, it acts not for the People, but as a rogue force, reaching beyond the bounds of its legitimate authority.  In any case, though the Preamble may lay out the purposes behind the Constitution, the fact remains that the limitations on our government’s powers were not restricted to citizens alone. 

    The Writ of Habeas Corpus is, in its very essence, a procedure which question the authority of the detaining party.  Historically, it was never limited solely to citizens of the detaining government.  It could also be initiated by any person, not just the detained individual.  So, even if the right to initiate a habeas proceeding were limited to citizens, a citizen could initiate the proceeding on behalf of a non-citizen.  As such, seeking to have the right limited solely to citizens would effectively be an exercise in futility.

47. Posted by Steve Perkins - 5 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I am STUNNED by the level of critical thinking in these comments, on BOTH sides of the issue.  Everyone here is either a practicing attorney or law student?!?  Sheesh…

48. Posted by George Sly - 5 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 16 minutes ago

    I agree with Mr. Perkins, I see a lot of emotion and little else.  I also note that he signed his name, which most of the commentators did not.  Do you ladies and gentlement sign your court papers “Not a Liberal Idiot”? 
    As to the question itself, the Constitution says “No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law.“  The word person and the word citizen are not synonyms.  “Concerned citizen” refers to the preamble, and attempts to limit the word person to apply only to citizens of this country.  If that is so, then my wife who was a legal resident but not a citizen when I married her, would have had no rights under our laws until after she took the oath of allegiance.
    I do not accept that position.  I lost friends on 11 September 2001.  I want the persons responsible to be punished, and I want their trials to be examples to the world of a just society that bases its judgments on evidence and not racial or religious bigotry or fear.  Those responsible should be tried in the Southern District of New York where my friends who lost family members and the world can hear the evidence and the veridict and a just sentence passed.  Any person convicted in a proper court should be regarded as a Goering or Eichman.  But by attempting to go around the law, with these secret interrogations and trials our authorities have swept in the innocent with the guilty and made the guilty to look like matyrs whose example will inspire others.  That is the real disgrace, that the current administration has acted in such a way that it has poisoned the well, so that my friends’ deaths have become meaningless and their murderers have become an example to follow.

49. Posted by Joe Herrick - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 49 minutes ago

    As usual, the ABA gets it wrong.  The majority opinion was not a rebuke to the Bush Administration, as the first sentence reports.  Rather, the opinion is a rebuke to the US Congress, which wrote the DTE and MCA—a rebuke to the body of elected officials who are the representative voice of this nation.  The Executive, who is also an elected person, supported the laws which clearly suspend habeas for alien illegal combatants.  Instead of relying on a standard established by the political branches, we will now proceed without any standard and rely solely on the judgment of district court judges who are unelected, unaccountable, and largely unfamiliar with the best policies required to fight terrorism.  I encourage everyone to read the dissents.

50. Posted by energy guy - 5 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 41 minutes ago

    Its Hot Out There-  I agree.  Why should the “detainees” have any rights?  If they were captured by military or intelligence personnel they should be presumed to have committed some act against the US.  Do any of you think the Americans who have been BEHEADED had any rights whatsoever?  We would be much better off if Congress and the Courts would BUTT OUT and let our intelligence services do what they need to to protect my family and everyone else’s.  Jack Nicholson said it best “You can’t handle the truth!“