Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Bagram prisoners can challenge detention (in US civilian courts)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/2/09 | Nedra Pickler - ap

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bagram; challenge; detention; johnbates; judgejohnbates; prisoners

1 posted on 04/02/2009 9:16:12 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

Education:
Wesleyan University, B.A., 1968

University of Maryland School of Law, J.D., 1976

Professional Career:
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

Gender: Male


2 posted on 04/02/2009 9:18:58 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

And we’ll get the opportunity to pick up the tab for their attorney plus travel & hotel expenses when they come to testify.


3 posted on 04/02/2009 9:33:12 AM PDT by Renkluaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
First lieutenant, U.S. Army, 1968-1971

That's not saying his troops didn't try to frag him.
4 posted on 04/02/2009 9:34:13 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

‘Shot while trying to escape’ comes to mind.


5 posted on 04/02/2009 9:47:22 AM PDT by FlashBack ('0'bama: "Katrina on a Global Level")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Democrats have absolutely no concept of equal protection. The Obama Administration seriously thought that a ruling they asked for at Guantanamo would somehow not be equally applied to Bahgram.

Democrats continue their 134-year-old tradition of opposing the 14th Amendment.

6 posted on 04/02/2009 9:49:59 AM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thrownatbirth; FlashBack

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.


7 posted on 04/02/2009 9:54:33 AM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but here goes-

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'.

8 posted on 04/02/2009 10:01:59 AM PDT by MamaTexan (~ Man made Global Warming ...... The fraud used to tax the air we breathe ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Which US court has jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries?


9 posted on 04/02/2009 10:09:38 AM PDT by MissEdie (America went to the polls on 11-4-08 and all we got was a socialist and a dottering old fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
-- The judge is right, and it's very simple, really. --

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."

10 posted on 04/02/2009 10:11:26 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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...


11 posted on 04/02/2009 10:18:52 AM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
-- The US claimed jurisdiction to detain these people, so the US must give them their day in court. --

Found the case I was thinking of. Munaf v Geren, decided Aug 27, 2008.

The habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. §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 Court’s 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 detainees’ lawyers, among other arguments, have told the Circuit Court that Munaf in no way disturbs — and even confirms — 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 “second-guessing” by the courts.

12 posted on 04/02/2009 10:39:55 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'll agree the news is lacking, nor would I argue against the court's findings.

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.

(sigh)

13 posted on 04/02/2009 10:43:09 AM PDT by MamaTexan (~ Man made Global Warming ...... The fraud used to tax the air we breathe ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

New policy: No prisoners...


14 posted on 04/02/2009 10:55:48 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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.


15 posted on 04/02/2009 12:38:21 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Meanwhile, the sheeple graze mindlessly while awaiting slaughter at Hope and Change Ranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“New policy: No prisoners...”

I like that.

1. Capture them.
2. Interrogate them.
3. Cap them.


16 posted on 04/02/2009 12:39:21 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Meanwhile, the sheeple graze mindlessly while awaiting slaughter at Hope and Change Ranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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?


17 posted on 04/02/2009 1:24:11 PM PDT by popdonnelly (The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by governments. You've been warned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“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.


18 posted on 04/03/2009 10:25:16 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Renkluaf
And we’ll get the opportunity to pick up the tab for their attorney plus travel & hotel expenses when they come to testify.

That's a better deal than they give the accused members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

19 posted on 04/03/2009 10:28:32 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Wow. This simple assclown Bates is a Dubya appointment?


20 posted on 04/03/2009 10:31:22 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thrownatbirth
That's not saying his troops didn't try to frag him.

Stop it right there.

That shit just didn't happen and you need to quit that myth.

21 posted on 04/03/2009 10:34:33 PM PDT by occamrzr06 (I was nice during the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
I find no “mention” of it anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

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

declaration
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.

resolution
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.

22 posted on 04/04/2009 5:07:57 AM PDT by MamaTexan (~ Man made Global Warming ...... The fraud used to tax the air we breathe ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: occamrzr06
That shit just didn't happen and you need to quit that myth.

I prolly should. I remember the Jane Fonda speech where it started. Amazing. Exactly like Kerry, she just made it up.
23 posted on 04/04/2009 8:07:14 PM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson