Does Today's Ruling Extend to those Held in Clandestine Detainee Programs? Posted by Adam Blickstein

In the third major ruling against the Bush administration's detainee policy since 2004, the Supreme Court backed the right of foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Obviously a lot to digest, but my first question is: would this ruling apply to detainees held outside of Guantanamo? I haven't read the full ruling yet, but at first glance, it seems that today's decision might provide a blanket precedent for all detainees currently being held by the U.S. military regardless of physical location, and possibly including clandestine detention programs that have yet to be publicly disclosed. There has been quite a bit of press recently regarding these "ghost detention facilities," including military prison ships floating at sea as well as the use of Diego Garcia as a more remote version of Guantanamo, virtually hidden from the public eye and media scrutiny by thousands of miles of sea.

Doesn't the Court's ruling today allow these detainees to also challenge their detention? Which begs a question: if a detention program doesn't officially exist, do the detainees have the same rights as those held in a facility that is on the public radar? Would this ruling shed light on the detention programs that are still hidden in the "fog of law?" If so, the Court today might have delivered a ruling with broader ramifications than just allowing the 270 Guantanamo detainees from challenging their military incarceration and might further expose the Administration's dubious use of extrajudicial imprisonment that, according to some reports, is far more harsh than the conditions at Guantanamo.

Comments

[Kisna Kistnasamy]

I have read posting made by Adam Blickstein "Does Today's Ruling Extend to those Held in Clandestine Detainee Programs?" with interest. Can you provide details as to where I can get the ruling of Supreme Court on the right of foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. mentioned in the article. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Kisna Kistnasamy

[smaug]

No and yes. The ruling would cover Diego Garcia or a US ship outside a combat zone or theatre of operations. It would not cover a non-US facility or even one in Iraq or Afghanistan. The decision was narrowly crafted, as the link explains.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Van công nghiệp]

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic.