« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Appeals Court Sides with Admin on Detainee Law
Supreme Court, here we come.
From the AP:
Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.
Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Mr. Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.
The ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.
Update: In a later edition of the story, the AP reports that that "attorneys for the detainees immediately said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court."
For those interested in a nitty-gritty breakdown of the decision, Marty Lederman's got your fix. "The only reason" [Gitmo detainees] are not entitled to habeas rights," he writes on the majority opinion, "is that their U.S. captors chose to turn left and take them to the U.S.-run facility in GTMO, rather than turning right to go to a U.S. facility in say, South Carolina."
Comments (19)
ohiomeister wrote on February 20, 2007 11:56 AM:Don't link to AP articles via the subscription-required WSJ please!
Crust wrote on February 20, 2007 12:10 PM:Here's the free CNN link to the same AP story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/detainees.lawsuits.ap/
Ad Absurdum wrote on February 20, 2007 12:11 PM:If only the then Democratic minority in the Senate had been as willing to stop the Military Commissions Act as the now minority Republicans are willing to stop the anti-escalation resolution debate. One can only dream.
bob wrote on February 20, 2007 1:05 PM:I always wonder at times like this how many of those fed sppeals judges were appointed by old Bush himself. Anyone know?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 20, 2007 1:08 PM:Does anyone else smell the smoke of the 2008 Presidential Elections being dissolved 'cuz (the REAL American) tay-er-ists (The Electorate)' can vote?
Oh what grand world if Whore-for-Hay de Shrub can truly become Grande Heffe and El Presidente por Viva!!! He has got Right (spelled D-U-T-Y and O-B-L-l-G-A-T-I-O-N in his mind) to use military force against the American People, to inprision every last one of us AND Haliburton has no bid contracts to build megaprision throughout the U.S. of A.
The sad part is that Sadam and Castro at least allowed elections.
Anonymous wrote on February 20, 2007 2:05 PM:The appellate court panel was 2-1. The dissenting justice (Rogers) is a Clinton appointee. The majority were Reagan and Bush I.
bluelaw wrote on February 20, 2007 2:14 PM:So much for Specter's plan to let the courts save our Constitution. In passing the Military Commissions Act, Specter acknowledged that the Act was "patently unconstitutional on its face" and that it "set back basic rights by some 900 years." But, he said, it was okay to vote to set back rights by 900 years because although "Congress could have done it right, and didn't...the next line of defense is the court. And I think the court will clean it up." So much for that plan.... And somehow, Specter isn't called out on this yet?
A. Californian wrote on February 20, 2007 3:00 PM:This could be one of the real reasons why Carole Lam was 'dismissed'...San Diego County's Rep. and neo-con darling Duncan Hunter is most likely on the 'follow-up investigation' list, and he just declared for Pres. nominee. recently.
DallasNE wrote on February 20, 2007 3:04 PM:I don't even pretend to understand court rulings. They all seem completely arbitrary.
How, for instance, can a law passed in 2006 be applied to people taken prisoner in 2002?
Lastly, one Judge seemed to base his ruling on the intent of Congress rather than the Constitution. If the intent of Congress was the yardstick then the line item veto would still be the law of the land.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17239258/
It will be interesting when more details are published. I somehow expect the Supreme Court will hear this case and uphold it on a 5-4 vote.
ebw wrote on February 20, 2007 4:17 PM:There are no ends which this administration will not pursue in order to exert their brute-force power. Today's decision represents a travesty of justice for our nation-- for no longer do human beings have any rights, including the ancient right of habeus corpus-- but, instead like animals, they can be herded into concentration camps (e.g. Guantanamo Bay- Abu Ghraib- etc.) and be held indefinitely and/or tortured.
Moreover, we are losing our very voice-- for censorship is rampant and voices of dissent are being shut-down.
In light of such decisions, denying citizens and non-citizens basic rights:--
"What Would You Do If George Bush Declared Martial Law?" (by Jane Smiley)
Tragically, many Americans would simply try to rationalize such a declaration by a president who has continually lied to our nation.
The main-stream media would largely go-along, as they have with so many of the Bush administration's outright trampling upon the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Today, there are those who applaud the ludicrous decision by a U.S. Federal Appeals Court to deny detainees the right to challenge their detention at the Bush administration's concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. Human beings (citizens and non-citizens of the U.S.) can be rounded-up, herded like cattle, and shipped-off, without any rights, having been labelled "enemy combattants". Those mis-guided citizens who applaud this fascist behaviour should read the history of the Nuremburg Laws established by Nazi Germany.
Our once great nation, is slowly but surely, being transformed into a fascist state-- whereby the rights of the common man/woman are no longer sacro-sanct.
One shudders to think what the Bush administration could do that would provoke Americans enmasse to take the bold step to demand impeachment hearings. In today's time-- having witnessed this administration violate human rights- conduct a war upon a nation that did not attack us, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians- and brutally torture innocent people-- and then to witness many fellow citizens become racist hate-mongers (like the Nazis were against the Jews or like the KKK was against the Blacks) spouting vicious propaganda against peoples of Arab descent, makes the sane person hang his/her head in shame for our the loss of those ideals we once held dear.
-----------------------------------------------
Very soon-- such views will be censored and we will be unable to express viewpoints that the power-brokers do not want heard!
George Hausen wrote on February 20, 2007 4:42 PM:Judge Sentelle, the Reagan appointee on the panel, has a long history of arch-conservatism with a connection to former Sen. Jesse Helms and some key anti-Clinton decisions on his cv.
eleventhwheel wrote on February 20, 2007 5:11 PM:Here we go back to the Dark Ages, one babystep at a time.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 20, 2007 7:42 PM:Are the two concurring Judges members of the vaulted Feudalist . . . I'm sorry . . . Federalist Society?
Anonymous wrote on February 20, 2007 7:45 PM:"one babystep at a time"
Unfortunately, the steps aren't so small.
ken wrote on February 21, 2007 3:14 AM:The SCOTUS will throw this out. They don't like it when congress tells them they can't decide on something.
It will be 5-4 at the least if not 6-3.
Frank wrote on February 21, 2007 10:19 AM:The land of the free and the home of the brave? We are far from brave by doing nothing to stop this administration from thrashing over 200 years of a stunning "experiment" in democracy. How can americans now question the morality of the Germans leading to WW2? We are swiftly becoming the mirror image of that dark period in German history.
The construction of "habeas corpus cemeterys", or concentration camps like Gitmo, will be big business for construction companys like Halliburton.
The Hamdan decision by the SCOTUS gives hope that habeas corpus will be upheld for all that are imprisoned under the umbrella of United States law. To rule otherwise makes "the land of the free and home of the brave" a mockery, and make no mistake....you and I are complicitous already. Where else on the globe has any nation shamefully and publicly parsed the word "torture"?
doug r wrote on February 21, 2007 9:58 PM:GTMO is outside U.S. territory for constitutional purposes,?
Johann wrote on February 22, 2007 10:24 AM:Time to call in the Cuban militia to take back their territory, then.
The following on GITMO:
In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease.
Note the mutual consent needed to terminate this lease.
HelenRainier wrote on February 22, 2007 12:04 PM:Bluelaw,
I did not know that Specter made the comment that this law was patently unconstitutional. That being the case, you have to ask why he or anyone else in Congress would have voted for it.
Sickening, disgusting, and pathetic lawmakers.
Most lay people could do a better job of determining of what is legal than a lot of these "so-called" legislators with legal backgrounds.