Posted on 07/21/2004 2:43:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Drives the Judicial Jihadists crazy....
A basic flaw in the decisions is that the court grants illegal combatants rights that legal combatants would not have.
"But unlike the cloistered liberals of the Supreme Court—irony: four of the six justices in the Stevens majority were appointed by Republican presidents—the rest of America must face the music right now."
But Bush would never follow in that sorry tradition would he now.
Note particularly the way Stevens glossed over a very specific point at the heart of the Ahrens decision. In Braden the court said:
“But respondent insists that however the balance of convenience might be struck with reference to the question of venue, the choice of forum is rigidly and jurisdictionally controlled by the provision of 2241 (a) that "[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. 2241 (a) (emphasis supplied). Relying on our decision in Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948), respondent contends - and the Court of Appeals held - that the italicized words limit a District Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction to cases where the prisoner seeking relief is confined within its territorial jurisdiction. Since that interpretation is not compelled either by the language of the statute or by the decision in Ahrens, and since it is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the statutory scheme, we cannot agree. “
Look at that last sentence, but “since that interpretation is not compelled by either the language of the statute or the decision in Ahrens…”
B***s***.
Look at what they said in Ahrens:
“The history of the statute supports this view. It came into the law as the Act of February 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 385. And see Act of August 29, 1842, 5 Stat. 539. Prior to that date it was the accepted view that a prisoner must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court in order to obtain from it a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Graham, Fed.Cas. No. 5,657, 4 Wash.C.C. 211;2 In re Bickley, [335 U.S. 188 , 192] 3 Fed. Cas. page 332, No. 1,387. Cf. United States v. Davis, Fed.Cas. No. 14,926, 5 Cranch C.C. 622. The bill as introduced in the Senate was thought to contain an infirmity. The objection was made on the floor that it would permit 'a district judge in Florida to bring before him some men convicted and sentenced and held under imprisonment in the State of Vermont or in any of the further States.' Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess. 730. As a result of that objection Senator Trumbull, who had charge of the bill, offered an amendment which added the words 'within their respective jurisdictions.' Ibid. at 790. That amendment was adopted as a satisfactory solution of the imagined difficulty. 3 Id. Thus the view that the jurisdiction of the District Court to issue the writ in cases such as this 4 is restricted to those petitioners who are confined or detained within the territorial jurisdiction of the court is supported by the language of the statute, by considerations of policy, and by the legislative history of the enactment. We therefore do not feel free to weigh the policy considerations which are advanced for giving dis- [335 U.S. 188 , 193] trict courts discretion in cases like this. If that concept is to be imported into this statute, Congress must do so."
What you had was the Braden court blithely said the Ahrens decision didn’t apply and gave as its reason that they didn’t want the Ahrens decision applied. Self-definition at its worst. And wrong. The Ahrens court based its ruling expressly on the language of the statute AND public policy AND legislative history. For the present court to use Braden to undermine Eisentrager is…..ahhh, you fill in the blank.
Oh, and note this quote:
“Under Braden, then, a habeas petitioner who challenges a form of “custody” other than present physical confinement may name as respondent the entity or person who exercises legal control with respect to the challenged “custody.” But nothing in Braden supports departing from the immediate custodian rule in the traditional context of challenges to present physical confinement.”
Know where that’s from?
Rumsfeld v Padilla.
Amazing how a bunch of liars, I mean lawyers, can pervert any subject.
Tis simple... citizens of the several states have constitutionally protected rights. Non citizens do not.
If "illegal combatants" have the right of habeus corpus, why don't prisoners-of-war?
A simply astounding decision, whose only rational reason for being is not borne out of a concern for Constitutional liberties, but simply in order to hamstring the military and the Commander-in-Chief.
Let's not forget, under this utterly ridiculous ruling, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden now have Constitutional protections.
Republicans could do two things (not that they will, since they are utter cowards):
1. President Bush could simply repeat Andrew Jackson's remark: The court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it,
2. Congress could impeach the five treasonous fools who made this decision and remove them from office.
Like many of us, I am fully aware that the odds of something like this happening are similiar to the odds of the Publisher's Clearing House showing up at my door with millions of dollars.
One hell of a way to fight a war - don't you say?! I feel very sorry for the poor souls out in the field who will no doubt be forced to go along with this complete absurdity. We're now fighting the world's first war according to the dictates of political correctness. The Supreme Court is now Commander in Chief, just in case anyone failed to notice.
Even under the Geneva Convention - and even in Army regs - an illegal combattant must be given a hearing at a tribunal to establish his status as an illegal combattant. The idiots in DOJ thought that you could just lock folks up on Guantanamo and throw away the key and not bother to establish a minimal sort of procedure to ensure that they were not teenage American kids in the wrong place.
Once they are found by a military tribunal to have been illegal combattants all bets are off.
Oh stop bloviating. The SC only said you have to hold a hearing. What is wrong with that??? Tell me. I really want to know what you have against requiring that a military judge show up and hold a hearing and take statements under oath and let the guy say no it wasn't me before locking someone away for the duration?
First, that is not what the decision said. What the decision said is that you have to hold a hearing to establish that they are illegal combattants.
Second, all that was established was that they have a right to a habeus hearing, which isn't much. He or his attorney files a writ petition with a competent federal judge, the department of justice replies that a military tribunal was held and found him to be an unlawful combattant and consigned him to confinement at Guantanamo for further disposition, and the federal judge says petition denied.
Of course, if the US military was silly enough not to set up said tribunals - like they have held since forever - and cannot establish that a hearing was held, then the judge might just grant the writ petition, and someone will have to show up with the person and state what they are going to do with him.
That is ok with me. For all you and I know it could be your son or my neighbor locked up in Guantanimo. They have never had the opportunity to tell, even a military judge, otherwise.
LOL. Would this be the same federal judge that banned the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools last year?
These mooks have more rights than you AJ, they can judge shop. They can file a writ in any jurisdiction in America that pleases them and the Ninth Circuuit is gonna please all of them.
And that is what distinguised ex parte Quirin from the present case - a military tribunal was held. I suspect that somewhere in DOJ and DoD there are some lawyers sent to deep out of the way places who forgot to tell the administration that they just might want to set up tribunals.
It is not like no one knew. They set up tribunals to establish the status of prisoners of war in Gulf War I.
Bookmarked for later.
Oh BS. All they got was the right to a hearing somewhere some time. Period.
That is because the Congress, in the habeus corpus statute, left the jurisdiction in such matters unspecified. In an older hearing, the SC had to fill in that gap, since habeus corpus is a constitutional right. What Congress could do is to fix the problem by specifying which would be the federal district court with jurisdiction in these cases.
Actually Andy, you are the fellow who is full of sh5t. The GITMO jihadists can jurisdiction shop. You can't. Those are the facts whether you like them, believe them or neither..
If habeas is a "constitutional right" granted to terrorists in GITMO, then why isn't it a "constitutional right" for POW status prisoners in Iraq?
To quote from the Rasul decision:
“The Court today holds that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, extends to aliens detained by the United States military overseas, outside the sovereign borders of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdictions of all its courts.”
How does this not extend habeas corpus to OBL and Saddam - in fact to the entire planet, as Scalia pointed out? Every single foreign combatant captured by our military now has access to legal counsel and US Federal courts. The SC just assigned themselves jurisdiction over the military deployed overseas in combat operations. The only area in which they are constitutionally entitled to rule would be in our compliance with the Geneva protocols, or whether or not our actions even fall under the Geneva treaty, since we are fighting a multinational irregular force.
Andy Jackson: First, that is not what the decision said. What the decision said is that you have to hold a hearing to establish that they are illegal combattants.
Justice Scalia: The Court today holds that the habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. §2241, extends to aliens detained by the United States military overseas, outside the sovereign borders of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdictions of all its courts. This is not only a novel holding; it contra-dicts a half-century-old precedent on which the military undoubtedly relied, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950). The Court’s contention that Eisentrager was somehow negated by Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484 (1973)—a decision that dealt with a different issue and did not so much as mention Eisentrager—is implausible in the extreme. This is an irresponsible overturning of settled law in a matter of extreme importance to our forces currently in the field. I would leave it to Congress to change §2241, and dissent
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.