Skip to comments.Judge: Bagram prisoners can challenge detention (in US civilian courts)
Posted on 04/02/2009 9:16:12 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON A federal judge ruled on Thursday that prisoners in the war on terror can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention at a military air base in Afghanistan.
U.S. District Judge John Bates turned down the United States' motion to deny the right to three foreign detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in court. But the government had argued that it did not apply to those in Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Bates was nominated by President Bush on Sept. 4th, 2001.
nominated Sept. 4th, 2001. Ironic?
Bates, John D.
Born 1946 in Elizabeth, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by George W. Bush on September 4, 2001, to a seat vacated by Stanley S. Harris; Confirmed by the Senate on December 11, 2001, and received commission on December 14, 2001.
Wesleyan University, B.A., 1968
University of Maryland School of Law, J.D., 1976
First lieutenant, U.S. Army, 1968-1971
Law clerk, Hon. Roszel C. Thomsen, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1977-1980
Assistant U.S. attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia, 1980-1987
Chief, Civil Division, Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia, 1987-1997
Deputy independent counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel, 1995-1997
Private practice, 1998-2001
Race or Ethnicity: White
And we’ll get the opportunity to pick up the tab for their attorney plus travel & hotel expenses when they come to testify.
‘Shot while trying to escape’ comes to mind.
Democrats continue their 134-year-old tradition of opposing the 14th Amendment.
Don’t blame this judge. The fault lies with last summer’s Supreme Court ruling. Judge Bates is basing his decision on that higher court ruling.
The judge is right, and it's very simple, really.
The US claimed jurisdiction to detain these people, so the US must give them their day in court.
This is the result in the US not actually declaring war. They just passed a 'resolution'. These detainees were arrested as INDIVIDUALS, not legitimate prisoners of war as soldiers of their respective countries like they WOULD have been had Congress actually passed a Declaration of War as per the Constitution.
Now, our country is left trying to defend itself in its own legal system for totally illegal acts JUST because our government didn't have the guts to name names in the 'War on Terror'.
Which US court has jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries?
The news story lacks sufficient information to make the call. There was a pair of cases decided by SCOTUS a couple years ago, relating to US Citizens who were detained by the military, in Iraq, who were not given access to have their cases decided by a US civilian court. The difference was, IIRC, that they were being held by "coalition forces."
OK, let me get this straight... U.S. Citizens don’t have standing in our courts to require proof of eligibility of our PRESIDENT, but FOREIGN SOLDIERS & TERRORISTS now have standing in our CIVILIAN courts to challenge their POW status??? This world is really screwed up...
Found the case I was thinking of. Munaf v Geren, decided Aug 27, 2008.
The habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. Â§2241(c)(1), applies to persons held "in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States."
Application of the case is far from clear, however. After it was handed down, detainees and the government came to diametrically opposite conclusions in applying Munaf to the Uighurs.
The Munaf decision could figure prominently in the Circuit Courtâs review of [do federal judges have any authority to issue orders of any kind to limit or delay the Defense and State Departments from sending a detainee to another country, after the Pentagon decides not to keep an individual confined at Guantanamo?] The detaineesâ lawyers, among other arguments, have told the Circuit Court that Munaf in no way disturbs â and even confirms â the power of federal judges to assure detainees that, before they are subjected to detention somewhere beyond Guantanamo or have to face the prospect of torture in another country, they get a chance to object in court, with some chance of protection. And government lawyers have argued that Munaf makes clear that decisions about transfers of detainees out of Guantanamo are a matter for Executive Branch decision, without any âsecond-guessingâ by the courts.
US citizens, having gone to a foreign country and been captured while engaging in warfare, was rightfully held by coalition forces and subject to the laws of the sovereign country. This agrees with the Law of Nations, a document mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the US Constitution.
The US government claimed an authority to arrest foreign individuals in a foreign country, without first making them legitimate targets of war in accordance with the Law of Nations. Declaring war would have done just that, made every person in that country who offered resistance a bona-fide POW.
They didn't want to do it that way, it might upset someone, so they label them 'enemy combatants' and lock them up. Despite what the general government would like everyone to think, the Constitution is still in force, and failing to follow it has repercussions.
Now, due process will kick in because of our gutless, politically correct Congress, and these people will be released into our country and probably be given bundles of taxpayer money to boot!
If they didn't have something against us before, I'm sure they will now, and the government will never, EVER admit to what it has done.
New policy: No prisoners...
Incredible. Couldn’t make this sh!t up if we tried. Let me guess — the next step is a 9th Circus judge mandating release of all detainees because they were taken in an “undeclared” war. Jurists running amok.
“New policy: No prisoners...”
I like that.
1. Capture them.
2. Interrogate them.
3. Cap them.
FDR should have taken all those German, Italian, and Japanese prisoners of war to the U.S. for habeas corpus hearings. Don’t we owe those men or their families reparations, according to the honorable judge?
“This agrees with the Law of Nations, a document mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the US Constitution.”
Exactly what text are you referring to regarding the “Law of Nations”? I find no “mention” of it anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
“Declaring war would have done just that,”
What are the Constitutional boundries regarding a “declaration of war”? I have only found that a “Declaration of war” must exist. I have found no parameters or limitations on what a “Declaration of war” is.
Please give references from the US Constitution.
That's a better deal than they give the accused members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Wow. This simple assclown Bates is a Dubya appointment?
Stop it right there.
That shit just didn't happen and you need to quit that myth.
You would have found a great deal of information along with supporting text if you had bothered following the link provided.
I have only found that a Declaration of war must exist. I have found no parameters or limitations on what a Declaration of war is. Please give references from the US Constitution.
For historical documentation, try Article I, Section 8, Clause 11
Here are the contemporary legal definitions
n. 1) any statement made, particularly in writing. 2) a written statement made "under penalty of perjury" and signed by the declarant, which is the modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit, which requires swearing to its truth before a notary public.
n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.
A Declaration of War is a written, sworn testimony that the undersigned parties intend, in truth, to do something. It is a legally binding affidavit.
A Resolution of Force, on the other hand, is an unsigned, unwitnessed statement. It is NOT legally binding, so it carries no force in law whatsoever. For all practical purposes, it's just somebody's opinion.