Gitmo prisoners denied challenges in U.S. courts

[cali]

WASHINGTON — Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said today in a ruling upholding a key provision in a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

The ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.

<snip>

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1013388.html

[villager]

1. ah, the two Republican "judges" on the appeals court earning

their filthy paychecks, eh?

[bullimiami]

3. ruling against the constitution and for political goals smells like treason to me.

there is no ambiguity. laws do not trump the constitution.

just as the 5 sold out their integrity to put this anti-christ on the throne, his appointed cronies sell theirs to affirm his domination.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Just because we don't like a law doesn't make it unconstitutional

Congress does have the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts.

[The Stranger]

16. I thought this was indefensible.

But then I see you defending this. :mad:

The power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts is also not without limits.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


I am not defending anything. I am just pointing out what the constitution says.

[The Stranger]

25. We know the text of the Constitution, but, unless you're a Scalia-level strict constructionist,

it is highly doubtful that Congress could rob a sitting court of jurisdiction over a case pending before it -- especially when that case just, oh, happens to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

What -- are you going to type out that clause of the Constitution next? Feel free.

[bullimiami]

19. no but passing a law that directly contradicts constitutional tenants and

then upholding them with a ruling is wrong.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. What is wrong and what is legal are sometimes different things

It was wrong that people owned my ancestors. But it was legal. Then the 13th Amendment was passed, bringing what is legal in line with what it right.

[bullimiami]

23. right and if you had slaves today and the congress passed a 'law' to say it was ok

and the courts upheld it. it would still be unconstitutional.

laws passed and judges ruling do not trump the constitution. laws can be unconstitutional and judges can be unjust.
it takes an amendment to change the constitution.
torture is illegal in both the constitution and in treaties and laws.
congress can overturn the laws but treaties need to be legally withdrawn from and the constitution can only be modified by amending.

ie torture, detention and lack of habeus remain illegal.

[Union Label]

2. I was just going to bring this over

I saw it on CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/detainees.lawsuits.ap/index.html

[gratuitous]

4. David Sentelle strikes again

Boy, talk about the go-to guy in the federal judiciary for any and every type of Republican extra-constitutional shenanigans. Every time Ken Starr wanted to expand his never-ending investigation into the Clintons, David Sentelle was right there to give it the judicial imprimatur. That is, when he could tear himself away from posh dinners with his Heritage Foundation pals and ultra-right wing bankrollers.

When I'm president, my first act will be to remove this cancerous blight on the federal bench.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Former Chief Justice Henry Edgerton of the DC Circuit would be

spinning in his grave if he knew about this decision. He advocated for civil rights and constitutional rights. Unfucking believable. And the DC Circuit is generally the jumping off point for candidates for the Supremes.

[TexasLawyer]

6. kick n/t

[cal04]

7. Attorneys immediately said they would appeal

(snip)
Attorneys for the detainees immediately said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.

"We're disappointed," said Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "The bottom line is that according to two of the federal judges, the president can do whatever he wants without any legal limitations as long as he does it offshore."

A spokesman for the Justice Department, which was expected to seek dismissal of hundreds of detainee cases pending in federal court, praised the decision.

"The decision reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the MCA permitting Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention" through military hearings coordinated by the Defense Department," said spokesman Erik Ablin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_go_su_co/detainees_lawsuits

[rodeodance]

8. chalk one up for the WH/and Repugs who sold out! ----like McCain.

[rodeodance]

9. BUT. Leahy is onto this------wants to pass a Revison to the law:

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would accelerate efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights.

Such a provision, introduced by Leahy and then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., narrowly failed last year on a 48-51 vote.

"The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness," Leahy said in a statement.

U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution.

Randolph and Judge David B. Sentelle ordered that the hundreds of cases pending in the lower courts be dismissed.

Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, saying the cases should proceed.

[rodeodance]

11. Feature Article-----Some at Guantanamo Mark 5 Years in Limbo

Feature Articles
# Some at Guantanamo Mark 5 Years in Limbo at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Jan 16

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Or to the Democrats who did not filibuster this bill

Shouldn't they get some of the credit?

[Peace Patriot]

10. Congress could pass a law that anyone carrying metal in their pocket gets

strip searched and poked up the ass for potential weapons and drugs, to be determined by giant metal detectors on every street corner--but that wouldn't make it legal.

What are the damned courts for, except to protect people from unconstitutional laws, and arbitrary acts of government?

What else is Guantanamo Bay, except the worst arbitrary act any government has committed since the ovens at Auschwitz?! Hauled out of their countries by invading US military forces, some of them sold by war lords to the US military, many entirely innocent of even raising a weapon against the invaders, many grossly abused (and some dying in horrible conditions) merely from transport, held without charge for an indefinite period, in a completely foreign place--tortured, driven crazy, driven to suicide.

It is only a matter of time before only the Corporate Rulers and the US military have any rights in this country, and you and me find ourselves in Guantanamo Bay. That's where this is going.

I was thinking about another judge. In FL-13, where ES&S 'disappeared' 18,000 Democratic votes for Congress--in an election decided by some 300 votes--when the Democrat (of course the numbers went against the Democrat!), Christine Jennings, challenged this, ES&S REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE **TRADE SECRET** CODE they used to "count" the votes--but, what is worse, the first judge this went to AGREED with ES&S that ES&S's right to profit off the fat tit of taxpayers' money, in our election system, TRUMPS the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted.

If they can 'disapppear' your vote, they can 'disappear' YOU. And they will claim "proprietary" rights about how they did it, too. The gas. The oven. The mass grave. The shovels. All will be embargoed, and not allowed as evidence, because some corporate monster "owns" the "trade secret" of your death.

------------------------------

Throw Diebold and ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW --if you want a lawful government!

[Solly Mack]

12. Using the law to break the law

that's how everyone loses rights

[slipslidingaway]

24. !!!!!!!!!! And the votes in case we need to be reminded

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session (2006)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm


00259 28-Sep S. 3930 On Passage of the Bill Passed S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006

00258 28-Sep S. 3930 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 5088 Rejected Kennedy Amdt. No. 5088; To provide for the protection of United States persons in the implementation of treaty obligations.

00257 28-Sep S. 3930 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 5104 Rejected Byrd Amdt. 5104; To prohibit the establishment of new military commissions after December 31, 2011.

00256 28-Sep S. 3930 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 5095 Rejected Rockefeller Amdt. No. 5095; To provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs.

00255 28-Sep S. 3930 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 5087 Rejected Specter Amdt. No. 5087; To strike the provision regarding habeas review.

00254 27-Sep S. 3930 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 5086 Rejected Levin Amdt. No. 5086; In the nature of a substitute.

[cui bono]

14. Court: Detainees can't challenge cases

Court: Detainees can't challenge cases

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that foreign-born prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held in Guantanamo Bay may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a key victory for
President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding the prisoners — a decision that will strip court access for hundreds of detainees with cases currently pending.

"The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress," wrote Judge A. Raymond Randolph in the 25-page opinion, which was joined by Judge David B. Sentelle. Both are Republican appointees to the federal bench.

Barring federal court access was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system run by the Defense Department to prosecute terrorism suspects.

At the White House, deputy press secretary Dana Perino called the decision "a significant win" for the administration and said the Military Commissions Act provides "sufficient and fair access to courts for these detainees."

Attorneys for the detainees immediately said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.

"We're disappointed," said Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "The bottom line is that according to two of the federal judges, the president can do whatever he wants without any legal limitations as long as he does it offshore."

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_go_su_co/detainees_lawsuits

-------

The will of a Rubber Stamp Congress!!! :grr:

Significant win? :grr:

Military Commissions Act? :grr: :grr: :grr:

[enough]

15. k&r

[Maven]

17. The D.C. Cir. is known for being, shall we say, "inventive."

They make up their own rules on a lot of different issues (most notably antitrust).

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.

[stellanoir]

18. It's official

we have at least temporarily lost our humanity under the "money trumps peace" misadministration.

Ughhhh

May it be rectified by more enlightened beings ASAP.

[Zenlitened]

26. "Hey, you've got the wrong guy! I can prove it!" Um... maybe in the old America...

... you could have.

You know... the one where the jaded cop would have replied, "Yah? Izzat so? Tell it ta the judge, pal."

(Sound of cell bars clanging shut)

That's a bygone era, sorry. That America has closed due to lack of interest.

These days... sure, they might have the wrong guy. But they don't ever have to let you out of that cell to stand before a judge, if they don't want to.

Ever.

[HuffleClaw]

27. hmmmmmmm

i don't think even THIS supreme court will let this stand. they aren't gonna let bush chip away at THEIR power.