Guantánamo Bay & Habeas Corpus

[Gilding the Lily]

Local 12,

Do you remember our conversation about the detainees at G-Bay and Habeas Corpus? Well, like I mentioned, the issue would soon come before the Supreme Court. Of course, this does not yet answer the issue about habeas corpus and detainees' rights, but I thought you may be interested in knowing that the issue may be in the limelight again.

The Supreme Court is likely to announce within days whether it will hear appeals filed on behalf of two groups of detainees. Their lawyers are asking the justices to strike down a new law that stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the validity of the detainees’ confinement.

"Only 10 of the 385 prisoners at Guantánamo have been formally charged. Seen from one angle, the question for which they seek the Supreme Court’s attention is largely procedural: The appeals court dismissed their habeas corpus petitions for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits, and the detainees are simply asking the justices to reinstate the cases and order the appeals court to decide them."

Liberal article after the jump.

 

[delldude]

NO

Nope

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Hold your horses Dell...

The Justices denied to hear the case on procedural grounds... meaning that the Court will likely hear the case once those grounds are cured.

"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."

"And as always, denial of certiorari does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits."

 

[delldude]

He he he he....funnin' ya Lily

 

[local 12 proud]

Local 12,

Do you remember our conversation about the detainees at G-Bay and Habeas Corpus? Well, like I mentioned, the issue would soon come before the Supreme Court. Of course, this does not yet answer the issue about habeas corpus and detainees' rights, but I thought you may be interested in knowing that the issue may be in the limelight again.

"Only 10 of the 385 prisoners at Guantánamo have been formally charged.

Yea I remember GTL, I've since had a change of Heart.

We should demand the release of those other 375 detainees, bring them to a real nice neighborhood in the Good 'ol' USA someplace like...ummmm! say Beverly Hills, Get them a line of credit with Bank of America and help them achieve 'The Dream'. B)

 

[wnbubbleboy]

On April 2, 2007, the US Supreme Court denied cert in our appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions of Guantánamo detainees.


Justices Stevens and Kennedy, who voted to deny review, issued a statement indicating that detainees should exhaust the process set up by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) to better allow the Court to determine if that review process is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. This inquiry itself implies strongly that five justices agree that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which the government claims strips jurisdiction in these cases from the courts, suspends the writ of habeas corpus. The DTA nominally allows detainees to challenge in the Court of Appeals the decisions of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) determining they are so-called “enemy combatants.â€￾

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/04...ences-gitmo.php

 

[Gilding the Lily]

This inquiry itself implies strongly that five justices agree that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which the government claims strips jurisdiction in these cases from the courts, suspends the writ of habeas corpus. u]

I don't know about that. To me, it appears that only 4 may feel that way as of right now. Otherwise, I think those supposedly 5 justices would have found a way to hear the case now, despite the additional req's in the Detainee Treatment Act, and hold that the MCA violates the Constitution because it suspends habeas corpus.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

As predicted earlier, the Supreme Court reversed course and agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement.

It appears that I am not the only one concerned about traditional constitutional rights.

What are the chances that this will push Bush jr. to shut down G-bay?

"The action, announced without comment along with other end-of-term orders, is a setback for the Bush administration.

It had argued that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases.

In April, the court turned down an identical request, although several justices indicated they could be persuaded otherwise.

The move is highly unusual.

The court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue. But last week, lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military lawyer in which he described the inadequacy of the process the administration has put forward as an alternative to a full-blown review by civilian courts."

Article after jump

 

[Gilding the Lily]

On April 2, 2007, the US Supreme Court denied cert in our appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions of Guantánamo detainees.


This inquiry itself implies strongly that five justices agree that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which the government claims strips jurisdiction in these cases from the courts, suspends the writ of habeas corpus. The DTA nominally allows detainees to challenge in the Court of Appeals the decisions of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) determining they are so-called “enemy combatants.â€￾

As I expected, it looks like the Supreme Court disagreed with some of you fellas, again!

"In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. "

"The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act."

Detainess have Habeas Corpus Rights!

 

[Cosworth]

Perhaps the USSC has not swung inexorably to the right. Interesting that a Regan Appointee was the swing vote.

 

[Veritas]

Perhaps the USSC has not swung inexorably to the right. Interesting that a Regan Appointee was the swing vote.

Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote, not the swing vote. He has voted consistently on this issue. The word "swing" suggests that he changed or shifted his position on this question of law.

 

[delldude]

Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote, not the swing vote. He has voted consistently on this issue. The word "swing" suggests that he changed or shifted his position on this question of law.

Heard he swing's both ways from time to time......

Hey Cos....you stand corrected by the seeker of truth.

 

[Cosworth]

I guess I use the term differently. Point taken.

 

[tech2101]

As I expected, it looks like the Supreme Court disagreed with some of you fellas, again!

"In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. "

"The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act."

Detainess have Habeas Corpus Rights!

"This is the third time the justices have told President Bush that his plan for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution. This time, the president had Congress on his side. In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed a law called the Military Commissions Act. It closed the courthouse doors to Guantanamo detainees and set up a new system for terrorism trials at the camp in Cuba."

Source

We will see what new proposal he comes up with to keep them locked up without the right to challenge their detention before he leaves office.

 

[Cosworth]

As it stands now he does not have the political clout to pass gas much less something like that. Unless it is executive order, I do not see it happening before he gets his walking papers.