Find Post Investigations On:
Facebook Scribd Twitter
Friendfeed RSS Google Reader
» About This Blog | Meet the Investigative Team | Subscribe
Ongoing Investigation

Top Secret America

The Post explores the top secret world the government created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

Ongoing Investigation

The Hidden Life of Guns

How guns move through American society, from store counter to crime scene.

Have a Tip?

Talk to Us

If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.
• E-mail Us

Categories

Post Investigations
In-depth investigative news
and multimedia from The Washington Post.
• Special Reports
• The Blog

Reporters' Notebook
An insider's guide to investigative news: reporters offer insights on their stories.

The Daily Read
A daily look at investigative news of note across the Web.

Top Picks
A weekly review of the best
in-depth and investigative reports from across the nation.

Hot Documents
Court filings, letters, audits and other documents of interest.

D.C. Region
Post coverage of investigative news in Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Washington Watchdogs
A periodic look into official government investigations.

Help! What Is RSS?
Find out how to follow Post Investigations in your favorite RSS reader.

Hot Comments

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
— Posted by denamom, Obama's Quandary...

Recent Posts
Bob Woodward

The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.


Archives
See what you missed, find what you're looking for.
Blog Archive »
Investigations Archive »

Have a Tip?
Send us information on ethics violations or abuses of power.
E-Mail Us »

Other
Investigations
Notable investigative projects from other news outlets.
On the Web »
Top Picks »

Supreme Court Focuses Again on Detainees

POSTED: 03:36 PM ET, 06/12/2008 by Derek Kravitz

The Supreme Court decision announced today rejecting as unconstitutional the Bush adminstration's handling of terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the latest in a string of criticism of U.S. treatment of foreign suspects at the detention center.

By a 5 to 4 vote, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress did not insure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, received their day in court, The Post's Robert Barnes reports.

The court's decision comes a few weeks after a lengthy government report showed that the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, including the use of extreme temperatures, religious abuses and nude interrogation, was revealed at White House meetings of senior officials in 2003. The questionable tactics, however, remained in place.

U.S. treatment of detainees was also the subject yesterday when the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of Guantanamo detainees, announced that it was seeking unspecified damages as part of a lawsuit against the Defense Department on behalf of the families of Salah al-Salami and Yasser al-Zahrani, both Saudis who committed suicide at the detention center, The Guardian reported.

Also, ProPublica, a recently launched investigative reporting news outlet, has placed the detainee abuse story as No. 1 on its "Scandal Watch" list.

By Derek Kravitz |  June 12, 2008; 3:36 PM ET
Previous: Abramoff Scandal Reaches To Albany | Next: House Panel Approves Abramoff Report

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Although not a big fan of terrorist and believe they should be tried as such if captured , Im thankfull for the courts for the time being ruling/upholding the constitution and due process.Im very concerned with the current trend of using executive orders and emergency powers measures aka patriot act and fema mandates to further decimate our constitutional rights concerning search and siezure, due process, right to privacy and whether someone excercizing free speech in the context of your average citizen not agreeing with the ruling party status quo gets arrested and labeled as a terrorist as we march toward a new world order via Bush and his ilk.

Posted by: acetek | June 12, 2008 6:48 PM

It is unfortunate that those who are critical of the Bush administration's handling of the "war on terror" feel they have to apologize for it. By engaging in the most egregious tactics dealing with suspected terrorists (including kidnapping, torture, and the detention of completely innocent people for indefinite periods of time, in one case for 5 years), they have given aid and comfort to our enemies, the terrorists themselves. No one has done more to justify and legitimize Al-Qaeda than George W. Bush. I heard him just yesterday claiming that the world is a safer place because we removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. I wonder why no one has called for him to receive a mental examination.

In fact, while Iraq itself seems to have entered a precarious truce, that seems to have more to do with their own perceived self-interest, than anything the United States has done. We are stuck over there, and yet lack the ability to influence the outcome in any significant way other than to refuse to leave until we're good and ready.

Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan (the real front-line of the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban) is rapidly deteriorating, and we are on the verge of direct hostilities with our ally, Pakistan. While the Bush administration spends it's energy huffing and puffing at Iran over prospective nuclear weapons, we are now at significant risk that an extremist regime might come to power in Pakistan, and they already have nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the price we are paying for this "safer world" that President Bush is claiming credit for, is a massive increase in debt, a declining dollar, and a foundering economy, with the worst seemingly yet to come as soaring energy costs ripple through it.

This country was founded on some lofty principles. Our record of living up to them has been spotty over our history, but never has it fallen to such a low as during the last 8 years, at the hands of a President unfamiliar with his own many limitations, and a thorough contempt for those same principles which he regularly invokes in his rhetoric.

We have about six months left of having to tolerate this man, I can only hope we make it to January 20th, 2009 with our country still intact.

Posted by: ted in pdx | June 12, 2008 7:09 PM

I agree completely with ted in pdx's post.

I hope beyond hope we can escape the Bush/Cheney destruction of our constitution without further damage...but I doubt it.

Posted by: Coolbreeze | June 12, 2008 7:49 PM

disgusting and sad at the same time. these people are not americans. they are not covered under the us constitution.

to suggest othewise implies there is no differance between a citizen of the usa and the rest of the world. and that's the point isn't. to make us all sheeple, like the liberals

Posted by: laughing at the dems | June 12, 2008 9:01 PM

While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 12, 2008 10:56 PM

While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 12, 2008 10:57 PM

Is Scalia the activist judge to end all activist judges? His dissenting statement doesn't discuss the constitutional issues at all. He simply says any detainees who are released will come back and kill us. He gives no consideration to the detainess having to be tried in American courts. He gives no consideration to our intelligence and police organizations keeping track of these people. He just predicts the future and furthers the Bush/Cheney/Rove fear mantra, "Do as we say or die!" Bush is the worst, most arrogant president in history and Scalia is the worst, most arrogant justice in history. May they both burn in hell.

Posted by: daikon | June 12, 2008 11:24 PM

don't worry daikon, your ilk, your chamberlain world view has just about got us in hell, most likely during your pathetic lifetime.

Posted by: laughing at the dems | June 12, 2008 11:37 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company