Supreme Court rejects appeal by Gitmo prisoners

In a victory for President Bush, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by suspected terrorists challenging their imprisonment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.





Link To Original Article

[Codee]

Since everything started being run by administrative proceedure the remedies from the administration must be tried and failed. The court has no jurisdiction to rule where the administration has not yet been given the chance to exercise jurisdiction.

But the ruling may be only a temporary set back for the plaintiffs. In a brief order written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, the court suggested the detainees could appeal once their tribunals or preliminary hearings have been completed.

"Despite the obvious importance of the issues raised in these cases, we are persuaded that traditional rules governing our decision of constitutional questions ... and our practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus ... make it appropriate to deny these petitions at this time."

This is true for many many cases including ones against americans. However if the Administrative remedies have not been provided by the administration then no court can assume jurisdiction of the matter.

[Livefire]

The question begs to be asked.....isnt agency required to set up procedures for hearing and appeal under APA??
(most likely applicable to states)

[Codee]

Yes. And the court ruled that the prisoners should use an administrative remedy FIRST, before coming to them.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Codee

However if the ADministrative remedies have not been provided by the administration then no court can assume jurisdiction of the matter.

Ok, then perhaps the way to skin this cat would be for the attorneys representing the Gitmo detainees to go after the feds for failure to establish an appeals procedure as required by law. That may be a bit sticky since all of this falls under Patroit Acts I & II and all the secrecy surrounding such stuff. Another thing that comes to mind is if they are "enemy combatants" they definately fall under the Geneva Convention irregardless of the presence of a "declared" or "undeclared" state of conflict. Perhaps an appeal to an international tribune is in order. The USA is a signatory to the Convention and would be subject to subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.

[Codee]

I am not sure but I remember the SCOTUS saying that the fed executives needed to give these detainees a hearing. After that hearing would be the time to file a writ of habeus.

I do not know what they will claimin their habeus as they are essentiallt prisoners from a conquered nation. They are not going to have many rights.

I find it remarkable that people think that war is all about playing fair and treating people with repect. Truth is in war you kill people, demoralise their populase, try to start civil unrest if not full blown civil war, conquer them all and take the resources. If they enemy is lucky the intuders will not rape all of the women in order to thin out the bloodlines.

That is war. Not habeus corpus. That is why Habeus can be suspended in time of war. Your to busy kicking ass to care about law.

[Codee]

I guess it work out to be like a state based appeal. The SCOTUS is going to make you use your remedies in state court and exhaust all appeals FIRST. If one does not do that then the SCOTUS says of well... you were given a remedy and you waived it... go home. After you have exhausted all of your state remedies you are still in want of remedy then the SCOTUS will tkae your case. But first you must go through administrative hearing, review, trial, appeal, appeal, appeal to feds, appeal to fed appelate and then SCOTUS.

For habeus however I believe one just needs to exhaust all their remedies in the administration and then the supreme court can have original jurisdiction over the jusiciable issues.