US Supreme Court: Gitmo Prisoners Have Habeus Corpus Rights

This is a major victory for the prisoners and yet another slap in the face from the court to the Bush administration.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
[...]
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
[...]
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

And here's Scalia's version of judicial "wisdom":

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Shorter Scalia: FEAR blah blah blah FEAR blah blah blah.

And the article also reminds us of how the Republicans have subverted the constitution every chance they got:

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

They won't get away with that this time around.

The disposition of Omar Khadr's trial will likely be affected by this decision as well and the fact that we've now learned that notes about his detention were destroyed and that the judge handling his case was most likely dismissed because he ruled against US government lawyers should be more than enough for our Conservative government to stop stonewalling on bringing him home. It should be but since they don't even care that he was a child soldier when he was picked up - the first to be charged with war crimes - I'm sure we'll just keep getting the same "let the legal process play out" talking point in response to these developments. Like it was ever a legitimate legal process to begin with.
 

Security Certificates Struck Down by Supreme Court

This decision is certainly long overdue. The supreme court has unanimously ruled that security certificates are unconstitutional because suspects and their lawyers were unable to access classified information used against them that would force their deportation. The court also said that indefinite detention violates charter rights and has called for parliament to rewrite the rules, suspending the judgment for one year in which to do so.

You can read the supreme court's decision here and a fact sheet about security certificates can be found here.

The Liberals and Bloc Québécois said they would wait to see what the government introduces, but in theory support a new security certificate system. However, the NDP says it believes the court didn’t go far enough, and that people suspected of terrorist ties should be charged under criminal law, not detained without charge under immigration law.
link

I agree with the NDP's position on this one. If there is evidence to support detaining suspects, that ought to be enough to charge them criminally. It doesn't make sense to deport someone simply based on suspicions of their possible involvement in criminal activities.

Amnesty International supports the court's decision and highlights this:

The decision affirms that counter terrorism measures can never be used to undermine human rights. The court made clear that the security certificate process and detention regime are unacceptably flawed and thus violate the Charter of Rights, violations that cannot in any way be excused or justified. In the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, “security concerns cannot be used to excuse procedures that do not conform to fundamental justice”.

The court acknowledged the serious impact of ongoing detention without charge, and its potential to result in cruel and unusual treatment. “[I]ndefinite detention in circumstances where the detainee has no hope of release or recourse to a legal process to procure his or her release may cause psychological stress and therefore constitute cruel and unusual treatment.”

Exactly.

Update: There are criticisms of the court's decision by those who oppose security certificates ie. the refusal of a right to appeal, the deportation of detainees to countries that use torture, the issue of discrimination (racial profiling) and the use of "reasonableness" as a standard of the burden of proof required for issuing a security certificate. There is also opposition to the court deciding to give the government one year to address this issue citing the "draconian" conditions set for those who are not only detained, but have been released under house arrest.

Those concerns were raised during a press conference today by a member of Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui. Mr Charkaoui also spoke and praised the decision against "Guantanamo North". He said he fears that the Conservative government will not respect this decision because they don't support the independence of the judiciary. Warren Allmand of the "International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group expressed the same concerns and referred to the "hateful" notwithstanding clause which could be used by the government to override the charter although he could not see that happening with a minority government situation.

It's as simple as this, as Mr Charkaoui said when responding to questions at the press conference: "If you have anything against me, charge me."

More as it comes in...

Update: Canadian Cynic has a roundup of (predictable) right-wing reactions to this news.