| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Courts restore detainee rights |
| 2003-12-19 |
| WASHINGTON -- Two federal court rulings Thursday dealt severe blows to the Bush administration’s war against terrorists, challenging the way the government has detained suspects outside the criminal justice system. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled President Bush does not have the authority to hold an American citizen arrested on U.S. soil incommunicado, even if he is suspected of planning a "dirty bomb" attack on behalf of al-Qaida terrorists. And the 9th U.S. The court rulings could change the way the government detains terrorist suspects in the future. "The common thread linking the [two decisions] is the principle of checks and balances," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The administration cannot wage the war on terrorism by ignoring Congress and avoiding the courts." In a 2-1 decision, the New York court ordered the government to release "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla within 30 days from a military brig in South Carolina, where he has been held for the last 18 months without access to counsel, his family or court proceedings. -- snip stuff posted yesterday -- The San Francisco court ruling came from a petition filed by a relative of a Libyan captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo. ’Most serious concerns’ In a sternly worded 2-1 decision, the court said the indefinite imprisonment of 660 "enemy combatants" at the naval base is at odds with the U.S. Constitution "The government’s position is inconsistent with fundamental tenets of American jurisprudence and raises most serious concerns under international law," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority. "We simply cannot accept the government’s position that the executive branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access [to] counsel." Even in times of national emergency -- "indeed, particularly in such times" -- the court said, the executive branch should not run "roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike." The Justice Department said it is reviewing the San Francisco decision. But spokesman Mark Corallo added, "Our position that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens being held in military control abroad is based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent." So There! The administration contends use of the "enemy combatant" designation has helped the government in its efforts to crack down on terrorists and prevent another strike like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. -- Snip -- The White House said the New York ruling ignores the president’s constitutional authority. "The president’s most solemn obligation is protecting the American people," press secretary Scott McClellan said at a briefing with reporters. ’Resistance to oversight’ Civil liberties groups heralded the ruling as a "victory for the "This is a great day for liberty," said David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown University and author of a book on civil liberties in the post-Sept. 11 era. "The court rules that one man, acting alone, cannot authorize the indefinite detention of any citizen he labels a ’bad guy,’ even if that one man is the president of the United States." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the New York court’s decision shows the administration’s assertion of "unilateral authority and its arrogant resistance to oversight and public accountability have needlessly and corrosively strained our constitutional principles." Some legal experts viewed both court decisions Thursday as an attempt to undercut the administration’s war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. John Yoo, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit conservative public policy organization based in Washington, called the decisions an attempt "to turn the clock back to Sept. 10, when we fought the war on terrorism through the criminal justice system." Yoo said the ruling from the San Francisco court held little meaning since the Supreme Court plans to hear a similar case and its ruling would supersede any decision by the lower court. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the detainees should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system. Dualing Courts! You seen it here first folks! "I’m not surprised that the 9th In another matter involving legal counsel for the detainees, the Pentagon said Thursday that a military defense lawyer has been assigned to represent one of the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen will be granted access to a lawyer. He is the second detainee to receive counsel. Australian David Hicks was provided counsel earlier this month, making him the first detainee at the facility to speak with a lawyer. Both Hamdan and Hicks are among six Guantanamo Bay prisoners designated by President Bush as candidates for trials by special military tribunals. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #8 Castro cashed them for 2-3 years, then stopped. When the beard starts cashing them again it will be a sign that the end is near. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-19 8:14:00 AM |
| #7 Our courts have lost their way. Completely. Pray for the soul of the nation coz the court system in this country is helping to destroy it. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-12-19 6:50:25 AM |
| #6 Again, no clue about jurisdiction here ... SCOTUS is looking into the status of the US base at Gitmo right now. If they determine it is US soil then arguably court jurisdiction extends to Gitmo as well. The decision is expected some time around July. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-12-19 3:05:07 AM |
| #5 My understanding was that we had Gitmo under lease agreement with Cuba to begin with, which basically means that we rent it. Again, no clue about jurisdiction here ... Yep. We send the Cuban government a rent check every year. Castro cashed them for 2-3 years, then stopped. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2003-12-19 1:39:22 AM |
| #4 My understanding was that we had Gitmo under lease agreement with Cuba to begin with, which basically means that we rent it. Again, no clue about jurisdiction here ... |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2003-12-19 1:00:46 AM |
| #3 I think Bush should draft the entire 9th Circuit, send it to Afghanistan, and give it orders to :"defend" 'suspected' Taliban in Afghani courts. At the same time, the US commander in Afghanistan should whisper in Karzai's ear, "Don't you think the defenders of these evil men should get the same punishment the criminals receive?" That way, we could accomplish a number of things, on many different levels, and all for the good of the United States in particular and justice throughout the world. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-19 12:55:14 AM |
| #2 I think Bush should draft the entire 9th Circuit, send it to Afghanistan, and give it orders to :"defend" 'suspected' Taliban in Afghani courts. At the same time, the US commander in Afghanistan should whisper in Karzai's ear, "Don't you think the defenders of these evil men should get the same punishment they receive?" That way, we could accomplish a number of things, on many different levels, and all for the good of the United States in particular and justice throughout the world. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-19 12:54:59 AM |
| #1 I wan't aware Cuba fell under the 9th Circus' jurisdiction. |
| Posted by: spiffo 2003-12-19 12:23:43 AM |