As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Habeas Corpus: Back in Action?

GolemGolem of SandSaint Joseph, MORegistered User regular
edited December 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
WASHINGTON — In the first legal decision on a new federal law that denied access to U.S. courts to detainees in the war on terrorism, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that foreign prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could not sue for their freedom.

But in a split decision, U.S. District Judge James Robertson also ruled that the law's denial of that right to the more than 12 million legal immigrants living in the United States was unconstitutional.


The first part of the ruling affirmed what Congress intended when it passed the Military Commissions Act in October. And appropriately enough, the decision came in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the onetime driver to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who had won what appeared to be a landmark victory in the Supreme Court in June.

Taking up Hamdan's suit, the high court's justices said President Bush had overstepped his power when he created a system of military tribunals for foreign-born alleged terrorists.

In response, Congress passed a law authorizing military tribunals. In addition, it moved to deny access to the courts to "aliens" who are accused by the president of being terrorists or "unlawful combatants."

Critics in the Senate said this provision was written so broadly that it took away from the nation's legal immigrants the traditional right of habeas corpus. This right allows those who are arrested and imprisoned to go before a judge and to plead for their freedom.

In Wednesday's ruling, Robertson said lawmakers had the legal power to close U.S. courts to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"Congress unquestionably has the power to establish and define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts," he wrote in a 22-page opinion. Until some recent decisions, he said, it had always been understood that "an alien captured abroad and detained outside the United States" did not have a right to sue in a federal court.

Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay is, technically, the sovereign territory of Cuba, Robertson noted.

However, the Constitution protects the right of habeas corpus for anyone living in the United States, the judge said. The Constitution says this right may be "suspended" during times of "rebellion or invasion."

"Neither rebellion nor invasion was occurring at the time the MCA was enacted," Robertson said, and Congress did not claim otherwise.

"Thus, the Great Writ has survived the Military Commissions Act," and any effort to block a person from going to court in this country "must be unconstitutional," the judge concluded.

The ruling clears the way for the Bush administration to go forward with a military trial of Hamdan. It is also likely to be the first of many decisions interpreting the new law.

Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) also have announced they will seek to restore habeas rights for legal immigrants when the new Congress opens in January.


Well looks pretty kool. However I'm Confused on a couple of parts.

Thus, the Great Writ has survived the Military Commissions Act," and any effort to block a person from going to court in this country "must be unconstitutional," the judge concluded.

The ruling clears the way for the Bush administration to go forward with a military trial of Hamdan. It is also likely to be the first of many decisions interpreting the new law.

So Habeas Corpus is inacted now right?

And before it was reinacted all the Bush Administration could do was hold people in torture camps?

So both the MCA and Habeas are in acted together? How will that work?

Anything but positive ramifications from this?

Discuss and be merry.

Golem on

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sheer judicial activism.
    Golem wrote:
    So Habeas Corpus is inacted now right?

    And before it was reinacted all the Bush Administration could do was hold people in torture camps?

    So both the MCA and Habeas are in acted together? How will that work?

    It means that the MCA cannot suspend Habeas Corpus from immigrant American citizens or people legally residing here, I'd assume.

    moniker on
  • GolemGolem of Sand Saint Joseph, MORegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    moniker wrote:
    Sheer judicial activism.
    Golem wrote:
    So Habeas Corpus is inacted now right?

    And before it was reinacted all the Bush Administration could do was hold people in torture camps?

    So both the MCA and Habeas are in acted together? How will that work?

    It means that the MCA cannot suspend Habeas Corpus from immigrant American citizens or people legally residing here, I'd assume.

    My next question would be how does that clear the way for the US to prosicute Hamdan?

    Golem on
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Columbia, SCRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    moniker wrote:
    Sheer judicial activism.
    Golem wrote:
    So Habeas Corpus is inacted now right?

    And before it was reinacted all the Bush Administration could do was hold people in torture camps?

    So both the MCA and Habeas are in acted together? How will that work?

    It means that the MCA cannot suspend Habeas Corpus from immigrant American citizens or people legally residing here, I'd assume.

    My next question would be how does that clear the way for the US to prosicute Hamdan?
    This ruling affirmed the MCA in the case of detainees captured and held outside the United States.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    My next question would be how does that clear the way for the US to prosicute Hamdan?

    He was appealing for his case in Federal courts. Now he can't do that, or the courts can legally deny his requests so now his only options are military tribunal, and nothing.

    moniker on
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I was going to say "It's spelled 'habeus corpus'", but google says I'm the mistaken one. Learn something new every day.

    BahamutZERO on
    BahamutZERO.gif
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Any competent Lawyer should have just slapped Razul V Bush down and said "Bitch, cant do it!"

    There isnt a difference between illegal immigrants and people in Guantanamo.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    Any competent Lawyer should have just slapped Razul V Bush down and said "Bitch, cant do it!"

    There isnt a difference between illegal immigrants and people in Guantanamo.

    Other than what soverign territory they are on, you mean, right?

    Illegal immigrants have made it to the US, whereas detainees held outside the US.. have not. It's judicial activisim, I agree, but it follows the same line of thinking as for why Cuban refugees are allowed to stay and plead their case if they make it to shore, but get turned away if they are caught at sea.

    Edit: In fact, if it weren't for the reasons behind this law, I'd almost go as far as to say this were limiting the jurisdictions of federal courts, something I never thought I'd see.

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Athenor wrote:
    It's judicial activisim, I agree

    :lol:

    moniker on
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    moniker wrote:
    Athenor wrote:
    It's judicial activisim, I agree

    :lol:

    Alright, what stupidity have I spouted now that people wish to deride me over?

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Athenor wrote:
    moniker wrote:
    Athenor wrote:
    It's judicial activisim, I agree

    :lol:

    Alright, what stupidity have I spouted now that people wish to deride me over?

    You used the term 'judicial activism' in a non-ironic sense. The term doesn't actually mean anything, it's a hyperbolic equivalent of 'I disagree.' Only taken to an extreme thanks to its idiotic applications and attempts at being legitimized by people in the ID movement and anti-gay rights movements. (probably others)

    moniker on
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    *shrugs* I've been hearing about it since High School civics and governemnt classes. Does that mean it exists? Hell if I know. But strangely, I don't mind this fine splitting of hairs, as it applies to this case.

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2006
    moniker wrote:
    You used the term 'judicial activism' in a non-ironic sense. The term doesn't actually mean anything, it's a hyperbolic equivalent of 'I disagree.' Only taken to an extreme thanks to its idiotic applications and attempts at being legitimized by people in the ID movement and anti-gay rights movements. (probably others)

    The term means something, it just gets lobbed around to the point where everyone writes it off as what you say. "Judicial activism" refers to the practice of the judiciary interpreting a law in a way markedly different from its original intent based to achieve an outcome they see as desireable. If a judge interpreted the first amendment as requiring the government to provide funding for any person to make a national television ad promoting any view the person saw fit, that would be judicial activism, because no sane reading of that amendment will see that as a reasonable interpretation.

    Whether or not this ever happens is another issue, but pretending that the entire concept has no meaning is silly.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    moniker wrote:
    You used the term 'judicial activism' in a non-ironic sense. The term doesn't actually mean anything, it's a hyperbolic equivalent of 'I disagree.' Only taken to an extreme thanks to its idiotic applications and attempts at being legitimized by people in the ID movement and anti-gay rights movements. (probably others)
    The term means something, it just gets lobbed around to the point where everyone writes it off as what you say. "Judicial activism" refers to the practice of the judiciary interpreting a law in a way markedly different from its original intent based to achieve an outcome they see as desireable. If a judge interpreted the first amendment as requiring the government to provide funding for any person to make a national television ad promoting any view the person saw fit, that would be judicial activism, because no sane reading of that amendment will see that as a reasonable interpretation.

    Whether or not this ever happens is another issue, but pretending that the entire concept has no meaning is silly.
    The problem is that it's such a loaded term, now. It's always used as a pejorative, despite the fact that Brown v. Board of Education is an activist decision.

    Thanatos on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    The term means something, it just gets lobbed around to the point where everyone writes it off as what you say. "Judicial activism" refers to the practice of the judiciary interpreting a law in a way markedly different from its original intent based to achieve an outcome they see as desireable. If a judge interpreted the first amendment as requiring the government to provide funding for any person to make a national television ad promoting any view the person saw fit, that would be judicial activism, because no sane reading of that amendment will see that as a reasonable interpretation.

    Whether or not this ever happens is another issue, but pretending that the entire concept has no meaning is silly.

    If the concept is never applicable then I would say it is a meaningless concept. Personally I can't think of an instance where it did actually occur. I can think of plenty of rulings that I disagree with, particularly Kelo, but I wouldn't label that 'judicial activism' in any real sense. Same thing goes for Brown...except I agree with it, of course, I just don't see how it would be judicial activism, though.

    Here is a longass essay on the subject, if you feel like wasting time.

    moniker on
  • BlackDog85BlackDog85 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wow; I actually just got a personal letter from Frank Laughtenberg (Senator, NJ-D) about this. I had written him last month about his vote on the habeas corpus bill, and he explained to me that, basically, while he tried to fight to get the bill to contain more provisions that would protect civil rights, he felt that the bill, hideous though it was, was at least a "first step" towards getting some of the detainees before a court, and that most of the problems with the bill would be settled by the courts, who'd rule against the dumb stuff.

    Maybe he wasn't just blowing smoke up my ass.

    BlackDog85 on
    KeithBeKnives.png
    Wii Code: 5700 4466 3616 6981 (PM if y'all add me)
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bah.

    So essentially Guantanamo is now confirmed as legal?

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    DeepQantas wrote:
    Bah.

    So essentially Guantanamo is now confirmed as legal?

    Yes, which is why I wouldn't call this decision "cool", even with special gay spelling.

    Regina Fong on
Sign In or Register to comment.