Posted on 12/06/2007 5:56:57 AM PST by imd102
The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday over just how much due process Guantanamo Bay detainees deserve in challenging their imprisonment -- and how much they already have.
The dramatic argument in Boumediene v. Bush spilled beyond the allotted one hour, as both advocates engaged in unusually heated debates with justices who are likely to vote against them. More than 70 people spent a cold night in line outside the Court to wait for seats, and among the spectators were Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-N.C.
Like fighters shaking hands before entering the ring, Waxman and Clement embraced before the arguments began. The current and former solicitors general treated the justices and spectators to one of the best-argued cases in recent memory, with neither advocate derailed by persistent questioning. Waxman's chief nemesis was Justice Antonin Scalia, who repeatedly challenged him to name a single case in U.S. or British legal history in which a foreign alien imprisoned outside a nation's sovereign territory had been given habeas rights.
Waxman said the Court had already decided in Rasul v. Bush that Guantanamo was effectively under U.S. control. He insisted that, in fact, the federal government had more power over the detainees in Guantánamo, which is under U.S. military control under an agreement with Cuba, than it would if they were in prison in Kentucky, where state sovereignty could come into play.
Waxman also offered up case after case to answer Scalia’s query, only to have Scalia disagree with each one. "Line them up," Scalia taunted Waxman at one point. Eventually Waxman surrendered so he could move on to other points, telling the Court with a smile, "I have to plead exhaustion."
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
Message to Supreme Court Justices...when considering this case remember that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
Yes...Lincoln’s famous Constitutional quote...sure to bring out some of the “Lincoln was a tyrant” advocates on this forum.
I thought that was a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, not Abraham Lincoln.
The meaning conveyed by the quote is attributed to Lincoln and pertains to his suspension of habeas corpus in DC and elsewhere during the Civil War. The actual quote using those words belongs to Justice Jackson of USSC. I do not know what that case pertained to, but thought I would add this. Case was decided by USSC in the 1940s or 50s.
bajabaja is of course right on both counts.
5-4 in favor of the terrorists.
It appears that justices that respect the constitution are still in the minority and we get to just hope their personal views, which are what they actually follow, match what they should do.
Basically, Justice Jackson was defending the view that (for example) it would be constitutional to forcibly wire Ann Coulter's jaw shut in order to insure that her fire-eating rhetoric didn't cause angry leftists to start riots.
>>Waxman said the Court had already decided in Rasul v. Bush that Guantanamo was effectively under U.S. control. He insisted that, in fact, the federal government had more power over the detainees in Guantánamo, which is under U.S. military control under an agreement with Cuba, than it would if they were in prison in Kentucky, where state sovereignty could come into play.<<
As much as I don’t like agreeing with Waxman, I believe he is correct.
My agreement with Waxman was limited to to control over Guantanamo...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.