Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges

[Fredfredson]

Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges

Jun 28, 10:46 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040628/D83G2UC81.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism. At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer.

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-Sept. 11 assault on terrorism.

The court has yet to rule in the similar case of American-born detainee Jose Padilla and in another case testing the legal rights of detainees held as enemy combatants at a U.S. military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

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 Sept. 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.

[sarmajor]

and that the president or the military would not allow even mild torture as a means to get information.


Tell us another one.

[sarmajor]

I believe that all of this legal argument about the prisoners is smoke and mirrors.

If they were US citizens they deserve all the protection afforded by the constitution.

If they are prisoners of war their protection is per medium of the Geneva Convention.

In this unilaterally determined no-mans-land of enemy combatants where people are seized in their own country, transported to another and held for an unlimited time without charge and access to their own lawyers the only law appears to be that of the man with the biggest gun.

In a civilised legal environment they should be subject to international law but we all know what Bush et al think of international law.

[Justin6898]

Al Qaida did not sign on to the Geneva Convention, therefore its combatants have none of the rights given Prisoners of War fighting for countries which did..
However, I do think that American Citizens do deserve all of the rights from the constitution.

-Justin

[Larkin]

So Americans deserve more rights than those from other countries ?

Why's that ?

[thaanatos]

The careful opinion seemed deferential to the White House, but did not give the president everything he wanted.
a non-editorializing report might better have said.....the court made conclusions regarding what the constitution provides and decided the administration was right about some things and wrong about others.....

[Justin6898]

So Americans deserve more rights than those from other countries ?

Why's that ?

A. Americans deserve all the rights the constitution gives them.
B. People Fighting for Al Qaida don't deserve the rights given by the Geneva Convention to countries who signed. Al Qaida did not sign the Geneva Convention.

-Justin

[Zan de Man]

That, if I may say so, is a specious argument. War is a concept describing strife between nations, conducted by force. We declared war on these people and we have to treat them in accordance with international law. The alternative is to forfeit our own troops' rights under the same laws.

[goddesscon]

Justin.... what you are saying is... Just because there was no official signing of a document ...that it is ok for the US to treat it's prisoners with less human rights ...however, all Americans deserve to be treated by the Geneva Convention... Kind of double speak ...no????
Once again it is do as I say not as I do... convienient at times is it not???
Who gave YOU the right to determine whose deserves humane treatment???
I was not informed of you being given deity rights on the world...

[thaanatos]

the Al Queda have more in common with Jason, the Predator, and the Alien than they do with the soldiers who are covered by the Geneva Convention or criminals covered by the Constitution....would you read Freddy Kruger his rights before you locked him up?

[goddesscon]

would you read Freddy Kruger his rights before you locked him up?

Yes ...I would...simple fact...I was raised in a country that used to try to guarantee human rights... whether a mass murderer or a tax evader...they have certain rights...
Just because someone else acts like a barbarian does not make it ok for me to act like one... so you see... it is impariative that we show how much more civilized we are then those who have forgotten how to treat thier fellow humans...
Call me a snob but I like to know I can behave better then the likes of those who kill without a thought...

[Zan de Man]

I think that just about sums up the fantastical attitudes of those who argue against the application of the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of what they themselves have chosen to describe as a war.

[tolivr]

We declared war on these people and we have to treat them in accordance with international law. The alternative is to forfeit our own troops' rights under the same laws.

To my knowledge, the Geneva Convention only applies to armed belligerants of another nation. In fact, I believe it applies only to uniformed belligerants. I freely admit to having no expertise in International law, but isn't this the reason spies are tried by military courts and executed upon conviction?

As for our soldiers "forfeiting" their rights when captured by AQ or Iraqi "insurgents," I don't believe you have too much to lose there as it is unquestionable that those murderers are not about to observe anyone's rights. Their recent beheading videotapes displayed their treatment of prisoners--civilian prisoners at that--and conclusively proves exactly how careful they are of protecting the rights of others.

[Larkin]

You still haven't anwsered why Americans deserve rights foreigners don't. Repeating that the Constitution gives Americans certain rights it dosen't give foreigners is not a justification. Please justify the difference in treating Americans and foreigners.

As to the Geneva Convention, Al Qaeda was never given the chance to sign it.

[Francois Cellier]

Amazing, how differently media can report about the same ruling ...

==============

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040628_1748.html

High Court Slams White House
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON June 28, 2004 — In a matter of a few minutes Monday, the Supreme Court unraveled a major component of the Bush administration's legal strategy for fighting the war on terror.

The administration argued that because the nation is at war, it could label terrorist suspects as enemy combatants and allow interrogators unfettered access to try to wring security information from them without interference by lawyers or courts.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that even enemy combatants deserve at the least a chance to prove in court they are innocent.

"Clearly the administration is now on notice that the historical deference given to the commander in chief in times of war will not apply in this current war on terrorism," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor.

The court said U.S. judges may review appeals on behalf of about 600 detainees from 42 countries being held in Cuba, and that a U.S. citizen being held in the United States can also pursue an appeal and meet with a lawyer.

The detentions and interrogations at the Cuban facility, which opened in January 2002, have been controversial. Prisoners were brought to the base blindfolded, and some believed they would be executed. About 30 prisoners have tried to kill themselves, but the government has maintained detainees have been treated humanely.

One ruling on Monday written by the Supreme Court's most liberal member, 84-year-old World War II veteran John Paul Stevens, said that detainees in Cuba can pursue appeals in American courts to claim their innocence.

The ruling does not deal with whether the inmates are entitled to lawyers or even what U.S. judges should do when confronted with cases filed for one of the detainees.

The Justice Department looked at the positive side, saying it was pleased with the court's holding that it could hold people as enemy combatants. Spokesman Mark Corallo said the intelligence that detainees give up can thwart more terror.

Conservatives, however, worry what will happen next.

"The court could become a substantial impediment to the successful prosecution of the war," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents. "One can question the responsibility of a Supreme Court that invites litigation. They've invited it here in spades."

Civil libertarians celebrated.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the court unflinchingly flexed its muscle in a ruling that shows "the Bush administration's war on terror has eroded constitutional rights and respect for the rule of law."

Joseph Margulies, an attorney for prisoners in Cuba, called it an "emphatic reinforcement of the resilience of the Bill of Rights."

"You don't simply hold people in a lawless void based on an executive say-so," he said.

The rulings force the Bush administration to re-evaluate the way it detains terror suspects, a central part of its war on terror. The government may try in the future to hold terror suspects somewhere other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights apply.

The administration also must take extra precautions when it apprehends U.S. citizens and accuses them of being combatants. Those citizens are entitled to some rights like traditional criminal suspects.

Stevens' decision, and a separate one by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, make clear that they understand the hunt for terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. They also see a major role for courts to make sure the government does not go too far in infringing civil liberties.

-----------------

EDITOR'S NOTE Gina Holland has covered the Supreme Court for The Associated Press for three years.

[ninjalooter1701]

So Americans deserve more rights than those from other countries ?

Why's that ?

A. Americans deserve all the rights the constitution gives them.
B. People Fighting for Al Qaida don't deserve the rights given by the Geneva Convention to countries who signed. Al Qaida did not sign the Geneva Convention.

-Justin
The Geneva Convention is not about "Human Rights," then? What's it all about?

Toliver said:To my knowledge, the Geneva Convention only applies to armed belligerants of another nation. In fact, I believe it applies only to uniformed belligerants. I freely admit to having no expertise in International law, but isn't this the reason spies are tried by military courts and executed upon conviction? More or less, this is the gist of it.

Are we bigger and better than them, are we "more human?"

Are we 100% sure of "those whom we convict?"

[lily]

would you read Freddy Kruger his rights before you locked him up?

Damned right I would. Some lawyer would get him off if I didn't, and we all know Freddy NEVER stays dead :/

[lily]

So Americans deserve more rights than those from other countries ?

Why's that ?

Let's change this around. Do people from other countries deserve to use the court system, using taxpayers $$, by using stall tactics, filing motion upon motion, going from judge to judge like Moussoui is doing, for how many years now?

[Gunnybear]

I want to say no, but let's remember the Nuremberg Trials. We did provide the defendants with one of our best trial lawyers, Something-or-another Jackson, before we declared them guilty and hanged them.

So let's get Perry mason for this guy, then hang him.

[lily]

..............but how long should he be allowed to use "the system"? He's not a citizen of this country, but being tried in this country for being a terrorist. When does a judge or court tell him enough is enough?

[Francois Cellier]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/29/australia.hicks.appeal/

Gitmo detainee Hicks appeal likely
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 Posted: 0504 GMT (1304 HKT)


SYDNEY, Australia -- An Australian held in a U.S. military prison for more than two years without trial is likely to challenge his detention in an American court.

Former farmhand David Hicks, 28, has won the right to an independent assessment of his imprisonment following a decision Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing inmates in the Guantanamo Bay facility at Cuba can challenge their detention.

Hick's U.S. military-appointed lawyer Michael Mori told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Tuesday that an appeal was likely "if it's in David's best interests".

"There's a door that's been opened to have independent judges look at what's going on in his case," Mori said.

Hicks was allegedly fighting for the Taliban when he was captured by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in October 2002.

He was handed over to U.S. forces and transported to Guantanamo Bay as a suspected terrorist and has been held there ever since.

He was recently charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy and is expected to be tried by a military tribunal later this year.

The Australian government has come under fire for not pressing the U.S. administration to speed up trial proceedings for Hicks, and for a second Australian, Mahmoud Habib, also held in Cuba.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Tuesday defended his government's position in the light of the U.S. Supreme court decision.

Howard told the Nine Network in Australia it was his understanding that the court had ruled that Hicks and Habib's detention was lawful.

"The court has additionally ruled that people detained can appeal within the American legal system," Howard said.

"So if that is correct then that doesn't really alter the stance that the Government has taken."

The 6-to-3 ruling passes no judgment on the guilt or innocence of the approximately 600 foreign-born men held in the prison camp. (Full story)

Hicks was told of the court victory Tuesday in a phone conversation with his father Terry, even though he was warned not to mention legal matters, the Associated Press reportd.

"I just said to him, 'This is what's happened. You people ... can now come under the jurisdiction of American courts.' I said, 'What do you think of that?"'

"He (David Hicks) said, 'Aw, I can't say anything."'

Asked if his son sounded happy, Terry Hicks replied, "Oh, yes."

[Spyder Jerusalem]

This is a perfect example of the Republifascists yet again trying to usurp the Constitution and violate American Civil Liberties and rights to Due Process.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the methods of fascists, and this only serves to prove even more that's what Bush and Co. want to do to America.

but how long should he be allowed to use "the system"?
Lily, anyone that the U.S. takes into custody to be tried by our laws or held in our prisons FOR ANY REASON deserve all the rights and protections of anyone else in the same Judiciary position.
Anyone, citizen or not.
It is a measure of our commitment to our supposed desire of "Liberty and Justice for all" that we MUST do this, or be hypocrits of the worst sort.
If we do to other people what we ourselves condemn when done to us, that's exactly what we become.
Fakes and hypocrits.

Something-or-another Jackson, before we declared them guilty and hanged them.

So let's get Perry mason for this guy, then hang him.
Good one Gunny, "Guilty till proven Guilty" with no "innocence" at all possible.
Not at all American of you.
Nor civil.
Nor sensible.
If the same were done to you in some foreign land, you would expect to be treated with respect and dignity, as well as having a chance to prove your innocence.
Even if you were guilty.
Our judicial system, supposedly the best on Earth, and the one that all other countries should aspire to, being reserved for a few lucky Americans by virtue of a circumstance of birth?
And we call ourselves "Great"?
We say we're "Better"?
Bullshit!

Do people from other countries deserve to use the court system, using taxpayers $$, by using stall tactics, filing motion upon motion, going from judge to judge like Moussoui is doing, for how many years now?
Yes, Lily, if they are enmeshed in our legal oprocess, they deserve every right and privilege afforded by that system.
Period, without exception.
If Bundy could do it, if Ed Gein could do it, If John Wayne Gacy could do it, then so can Sadaam and every "enemy combatant" we have in our prisons.
Its just that simple.

B. People Fighting for Al Qaida don't deserve the rights given by the Geneva Convention to countries who signed. Al Qaida did not sign the Geneva Convention.
Justin, you imbicile, Al Qaeda is NOT A COUNTRY, fucktard!
The Geneva Convention WAS signed by both of the countries in question, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as every other country that the "combatants" come from.
So your idiocy expressed above is not only moot, but a sign of the ratio between the gray matter and empty space in that bulbous knot on the end of your neck.
Don't try acting like you know something again until you really do, dink.
Till then, pay attention and learn something beside s the Rightist Doctrine For Dummies that they broadcast on Fox Snooze 24/7!
Got it?
To my knowledge, the Geneva Convention only applies to armed belligerants of another nation. In fact, I believe it applies only to uniformed belligerants.
Toe-suck, you're a fuckin idiot too....try looking it up, Google King!
The Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Do you understand that, all you "lawyers" out there?
Or, do you need it explained?

[Francois Cellier]

Except for the expletives (imbecile, fucking idiot), which were totally unnecessary, I agree with every argument that Spyder brought to bear in his post. Thanks, Spyder, for taking the time!

[thaanatos]

uh, Spyder....this lawyer understood it, but it is obvious that you don't.....if that is the only relevant portion of the Geneva Convention, then the terrorists clearly are not covered by its terms.....


provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


the terrorists clearly fall short on b,c, and d....therefore would not fall within the definition of the GC.

[suedanim]

Excellent post spyder!

These people held without charges are in limbo. How many books and articles have been written, movies made about American citizens caught up in a prison of another country where justice is far crappier than ours? Innocent people... in limbo with no recourse. We then all sing the praises of our own justice system... so proud we live in a country where due process and probable cause... we think... are a given.

[sarmajor]

You don't simply hold people in a lawless void based on an executive say-so

I think that this covers it all.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

the terrorists clearly fall short on b,c, and d....therefore would not fall within the definition of the GC.
I knew you'd point that out, Thaanny-Ass!
As is typical for "lawyers" in pursuit of their own agenda, you attempt to strain at a rye seed.
Are you trying to say that these assholes are not afforded protection by the Geneva Accord?
Why?

This I got to hear!
I was talkin' about Iraqi Army soldiers in custody, but if you mean the terrorists, then they qualify under another section. Try actually reading the whole Document, rather than just the parts that agree with you.
This isn't the damn bible you know....

And none of this "everyone agrees" or "you've got to admit" shit!
I want to know what loophole of law gives the U.S. the right to ignore this document as pertains to ANYONE, much less some damn terrorist criminals?
Because of THEIR behavior?

That's called "taking liberties", in more ways than one, Thaanny Boy!
And I for one, offer no support to a country that uses a technicality to treat anyone inhumanely!

[Gunnybear]

Good one Gunny, "Guilty till proven Guilty" with no "innocence" at all possible.
Not at all American of you.
Nor civil.
Nor sensible.

Spyder ...

For one who prides himself on his wit and sarcasm, you sure missed it when you read it this time.

If the same were done to you in some foreign land, you would expect to be treated with respect and dignity, as well as having a chance to prove your innocence.
Even if you were guilty.

No I wouldn't. I've known better since I was a young little pup living in Turkey.

Our judicial system, supposedly the best on Earth, and the one that all other countries should aspire to, being reserved for a few lucky Americans by virtue of a circumstance of birth?

Isn't that what our law says? I'm sure there is a legal precendent regarding this subject. Whatever the legal precendent set is how he should be handled, IMO.

I find it rather ironic that this assbag attacks our Nation' ideals; yet, there are those here who will let him use those same ideals to his advantage in a court of law.

It's no wonder these clowns have no respect for us and call us weak. Had he committed like crimes in his own country he would've never survived capture to reach captivity. So don't say we aren't "better."

[lily]

Lily, anyone that the U.S. takes into custody to be tried by our laws or held in our prisons FOR ANY REASON deserve all the rights and protections of anyone else in the same Judiciary position.
Anyone, citizen or not.


Yes, Lily, if they are enmeshed in our legal oprocess, they deserve every right and privilege afforded by that system.
Period, without exception.
If Bundy could do it, if Ed Gein could do it, If John Wayne Gacy could do it, then so can Sadaam and every "enemy combatant" we have in our prisons.
Its just that simple.

But Spyder, when do you say enough is enough? Everyone seems to be so up in arms about how long we can hold a prisoner, but not how long a prisoner can "use" the legal system?

[goddesscon]

Lily wrotebut not how long a prisoner can "use" the legal system?

Simple... When justice has been served...

I think I quoted the wrong post...but you understand...
How long can they use our justice system???
Til justice is served...as it is for any American citizen...
Kind of like...when in Rome...do as the Romans?

[lily]

Ok, let me change the question...........how long can we let someone abuse our legal system? Hire a lawyer, fire a lawyer. Say you're going to defend yourself. Have a psycharitrist check you out to see if your can. Refuse to talk to doctor. Refuse to talk to any American. Ask for a new judege. Get a new judge. Decide you need a lawyer to help you defend yourself. Change your mind, will talk to doctor. Get another doctor. Hire another lawyer. If this was Mc Veigh or Nichols we would be screaming enough already!

The ONLY thing I can agree with him on is he has the right to question the other "terrorists" that we are holding to see if they can help his case. Which then has me thinking, maybe HE isn't the one that's doing the stalling, since we've seen hide nor hair of him since he requested this. :/

[Francois Cellier]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040708-100618-7711r.htm

Swedish prisoner released from Guantanamo


Washington, DC, Jul. 8 (UPI) -- The Defense Department said Thursday it had transferred an unidentified prisoner from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to Sweden.

So far the military has released 134 detainees from the Cuban island prison camp. Twelve others were transferred to their home countries for continued detention -- four to Saudi Arabia, one to Spain and seven to Russia. There are now approximately 594 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon has pledged to annually review each prisoner's case to determine whether he poses a continuing security threat. If he does not and if he is not selected to face a military-run trial, the prisoner can be released.

All prisoners will also receive a one-time "combatant status review tribunal" to establish whether the prisoner is being properly held as an enemy combatant. The tribunal is meant to address Supreme Court concerns about prisoner's rights under the U.S. constitution.

[Anonymous Idiot Savant]

Ok, let me change the question...........how long can we let someone abuse our legal system?

The problem is, you're going off an assumption.

So far none of the people at GB have even seen a lawyer.

I find it odd though, that we wont lift trade embargos on Cuba, but we'll happily use Cuba to hold our dirty laundry.