What? A Supreme Court ruling?

Despite months of lead time, administration officials appeared to lack their usual talking points when scrambling to respond to Thursday’s landmark Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo.

The ruling affirmed the rights of detainees to challenge their imprisonment — contrary to seven years of assertions by Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

This time, officials with both agencies were reluctant to weigh in.

A usually chatty Pentagon spokesman in charge of speaking about Guantanamo remained mum, taping a note on the back on his desk chair listing the phone numbers of Justice Department officials reporters should call instead.

Justice Department media representatives set up a briefing with department lawyers, but insisted the question-and-answer session be off-the-record. They acknowledged it was an unusual demand, but said they couldn’t discuss the decision because they were still reviewing it.

But that meant that nothing from the briefing could be used — not even comments from the obligatory nameless Justice Department officials who usually appear in such stories. Note to readers: You didn’t miss much.

That’s because Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo quickly objected, saying the off-the-record rule "does nothing to help anybody understand anything."

When he said he would consider the discussion on the record, he was told he should get off the call. Apuzzo refused, saying "there’s just no reason for this to be an off-the-record call." A conference call mute button prevented 40 other reporters from chiming in.

But Justice Department officials wouldn’t budge and the call was cut short. A follow-up call was hastily rescheduled with a warning: "If you are not able to accept the off-the-record ground rules, please do not join the call."

Without explanation, officials appeared to relent by issuing a terse statement — eight hours after the ruling came down.

No word on when they'll be taking questions.

— Marisa Taylor and Nancy A. Youssef

Comments

[michmog]

I am having, and have always had, an extremely hard time with the term "enemy combatants". What constitutes an "enemy combatant"? Were these folks, in actual fact, found ON THE BATTLEFIELD? If so, what battlefield? My understanding is it's beginning to come clear that most of the detainees were rounded up from their homes and places of employment...

[Tom Traubert]

Good on Apuzzo for taking a stand for good journalism. It's all too rare for your compliant colleagues to go along with those insidious off-the-record and anonymous "senior adminsitration official" administration policies to distribute character assassinations and official administration policy.

[Ron H]

The word 'SUSPECTS' should be emboldened and underlined whenever it is used in anyone's justification for torture and imprisonment without charge.

Not since the Salem witch trials has evidence been gathered about suspects using torture. What happened to the home of the brave and the free that we will imprison 'SUSPECTS' without charge or legal representation just in case they MAY be terrorists.

I guess that happened when we invaded a foreign country killing tens of thousands because that country MAY have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[retired-jag]

Who knows? The Administration might even be relieved that this decision in restoring habeas access for GITMO detainees eliminates the supposed legal advantage of holding them outside of the US and provides a decent justification for shutting the place down. tks.

[Karious]

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

In short, an enemy combatant is someone who fights against the US Military without being part of a uniformed, sanctioned military. Everyone the US is currently engaged in operations against fall into this category. If they are part of a legitimate goverment's military, they are not enemy combatants, they are Enemy Prisoners of War.

Look up the "Geneva Conventions" for more information on the difference.

[SwiftJustice]

If one reads the Geneva Convention regarding 'Preemptive Strikes' against foreign nations you will understand that George
Bush and company have no regard for such rules. Indeed Mr. George Bush has set the precedent for a new kind of lawlessness that we see almost
everyday here in the USA. In case any of you still do not understand why he invaded Iraq, allow me to explain. It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam Hussein. It is about the oil. Experts suggest that Saudi oil will begin to run low around 2013. Bush knew this before he took office. The September 11 attack gave him the perfect excuse to attack and occupy Iraq. The deal is this. The President of Iraq must sign an agreement entitling certain US Oil Companies to develop Iraqi oil, or the occupation will not end. It is so obvious that
I am surprised few people can see it.

[Steve Jones]

Under what grounds can the US claim the right to seize any person outside its territory and to hold that person, inside or outside the US borders, with or without Geneva Conventions, barring a declaration of war? Scalia spoke of our "war with radical Islamists." Given Article 1, Section 8, how does Scalia find us at war? Only Congress can declare war. It has not. Therefore, we are not at war, with radical Islamists or with anyone else. Not even North Korea.

Do we have a fight on our hands? Yes. But we must fight it within the rule of law. Charge them. Try them. If they're found guilty, sentence them. Otherwise, let them go.

Stop seizing foreigners in their own lands. When Americans are seized abroad outside of law, we call it kidnapping and protest vigorously. Rightfully so.

[Lon Schwartz]

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." –Justice Anthony Kennedy, US Supreme Court

[Kerry F Leight]

I find this decision inconceivable! These are FOREIGNERS, who have blatant disregard to the freedoms & rights, enumerated in our Conststution. (freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, etc) How can they possibly fall under the protections of a document they publicly have contempt for? How can the highest court, in the country, convey AMERICAN rights & priveleges to non-citizens! They are entitled to ONLY internationally recognized basic human rights! (decent food, decent housing, humane treatment and neccesary medical care)

[Kerry F Leight]

I find this decision inconceivable! These are FOREIGNERS, who have blatant disregard to the freedoms & rights, enumerated in our Conststution. (freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, etc) How can they possibly fall under the protections of a document they publicly have contempt for? How can the highest court, in the country, convey AMERICAN rights & priveleges to non-citizens! They are entitled to ONLY internationally recognized basic human rights! (decent food, decent housing, humane treatment and neccesary medical care)

[FM Abbott]

The point made by Swiftjustice was spot on; this adminstration's policies in Iraq are and always have been about oil. This is why Halliburton - the company which pays Dick Cheney's retirement income - received no-bid contracts for oil well restoration in Iraq more than a year before the March 2003 invasion. Moreover, I will not be surprised if that war reasoning is finally brought to light years from now when Americans are finally given access to details of the closed-door energy-policy meetings Cheney held in 2001 with the still-undisclosed list of participants.

[Boered1]

The geneva Conventions spell out very specific International Rules regarding both POWs and Enemy Combatans. The current administration has unilaterally dismissed all the rules established by this treaty, we are signatures to, stating that this is NOT a matter for the international courts but for our own courts. It is nice to see that at least 5 of our justices have actually read and iunderstand the Constitution and know that it is worthless if it is disregarded whenever it is convenient to do so for an administration. Good job, maybe once we replace thie current resident in the White House we can impeach those four justices who have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. After all if you read the Constitution it states "All men are created equal..." and does NOT state "All Americans are created equal..."

[David L.]

You can't impeach a Supreme Court Justice. They are there for life, and the only way to replace one is through retirement or death. That's why Congress has to approve the President's nominee - checks and balances. But once they are on the Supreme Court, they are untouchable.

[sean roach]

like it o not we are at war. you people are stupid. if the war is about oil, then where is it. The constitution was written for the people of the United States. it was not written for some murderous extermist from saudi arabia who is fighting to destroy that same consitution. think about it. use brains and stop acting like spoiled litle children just becasue you lost an election twice, and get preared for the fact that you are going lose another in november

[sean roach]

and show me where the constitution says that all men are created equal. that would be the declaration of independence which has no legal binding, and yes justices can be impeached. good god yall

[retired-jag]

"You can't impeach a Supreme Court Justice. They are there for life, and the only way to replace one is through retirement or death. "

FWIW, under Article III, § 1 of the Constitution all federal judges--including Supreme Court Justices-- serve "during good behaviour" which means that they may be impeached by the House of Representatives for "mis-behaviour" and if found guilty by 2/3 vote by the Senate following a trial may be removed from office.

The only Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached was named Samuel Chase who was appointed to the bench by George Washington in 1796 (see Wiki.) In 1805, he was impeached, but acquitted by the Senate and served until 1811.
Current Member of Congress Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla) who has served in Congress since the early 90's, was actually impeached, convicted and removed as a federal judge in 1980 for allegedly accepting a bribe of 150,000. (Again-see Wiki q.v. for details.)

[Tom Care]

This article is major reason why Obama must pick Hillary as VP and secure the win. For whatever his reasoning against it, it is petty compared to McCain stacking the deck with wtih 2 more Roberts or Alitos. If Obama loses, McCain's picks will move against the values of the majority of Americans for next 25 years. I truly respect the elder judges who have stayed with court and not retired until after new administration. Note who dissented to prevent an assumed suspect the basic of human rights (a fair trial).

[Tom Care]

To Kerry F Leight

You neo-cons just don't get it. For someone to use the word "freedom" three times in short paragraph, then go on to support denying "freedom" to assumed suspect thru fair trial. Will this country survive 6 more months of your wisdom?

[Willie-a]

The reason the Supreme Court is involved is because our AMERICAN PRESIDENT claims to be acting under AMERICAN LAW. Under AMERICAN LAW--military or civilian--it is the Supreme Court who decides what is or is not lawful. The AMERICAN PRESIDENT does not make those decisions. This rule distinguishes our government from that of a theocratic dictatorship. The court seems to be almost evenly divided between justices who believe that the law is our best protection and those who believe that the government is our best protection. It is a tough decision to make in perilous times, but for almost 232 years, we have endured nationally under the spirit that we are better protected when law controls government; not the other way around. America's strength is in her belief that a lawless government is not a reliable protector of its people. The Supreme Court decision was directed at our government's conduct; not at foreigner's rights.

[Elyconfederate]

Again, the liberals in our court system take another step at destroying America. Does it take another revolution to get the fact across that we want our Republics protected as designed by our founding Fathers and not liberals or socialist? The court is getting as bad as the 9th Circuit.

[Rich2506]

I'm extremely pleased to hear about Matt Apuzzo refusing to take part in a useless, uninformative off-the-record chat. What reporters have to remember is that the government needs a media outlet just as much, if not more, than reporters need sources and stories and exclusive quotes. It ain't a one-sided process and never has been. Reporters have to stop acting like it is. Thanks for refusing to play the game the way the government wants to play it.

[Rich2506]

sean roach at 11:04 says: if the war is about oil, then where is it.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!! Sean, Sean, Sean, WHY are you making the assumption that the Bush Administration is COMPETENT!?!?
We said they were evil, we never agreed they were competent as well.

[sean roach]

and show me where the constitution says that all men are created equal. that would be the declaration of independence which has no legal binding, and yes justices can be impeached. good god yall

[rickycolonel]

It serves The G.W. Bush Administration right to see what they have done is to no avail. this will haunt President Bush to no end. He will be remembered not as a great president but as the war monger that he became through the power of the Presidency that he occupied.

[Rich2506]

All-righty, sean at 2:05, I'll bite. We do not legislate that people breathe a mixture of oxygen & other gases, they simply do. We don't legislate that women can bear children but men can't. Again, they simply do.
Jefferson declared that all men are born equal. There was no need to put this proposition into legislation, it was considered to be simply, a fact.