Breaking: Justice denied to Gitmo detainees.
By on Feb 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Breaking: Justice denied to Gitmo detainees.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 today that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners. The court refused arguments that the court-stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional. “The ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.”
UPDATE: A copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
PatheticPerhaps we should round up 1000 americans worldwide and hold them in steal cages indefinately ……. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT………. I am so pissed off at America………. never buy any of your products for as long As I live ………….
February 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amWell, according to Vince, these people are deranged homicidal maniacs due to the poisonous influence of Islam.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amAnd now that teachers have been equated with al Qaeda (see thread below) it is only a matter of time before they are labled “unlawful enemy combatants.”
February 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amAnd according to paul, if we let them out we will be fighting them on our front lawns with a heavy load in our pants. Well, at least paul will have a heavy load in his pants.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amFor what it’s worth, I’m not surprised by this ruling. Courts have been pretty deferential to the will of Congress in time of war. The Supreme Court even upheld the Japanese Detention Camps during WWII. When the war was over, and the court had the opportunity to revisit the question, that’s when it found the camps unconstitutional.
So, we may be stuck with the Military Commissions Act for the duration of the War on Terror, which is, by definition, a never ending war.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amGreat visual VK, teachers from paul’s school district duking it out with Rush et al on paul’s piss soaked front lawn.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:54 amBNF – Damn that Ex Parte Vanlandingham!
February 20th, 2007 at 11:55 amTobey Tall sez:
What products? Do Americans actually make things anymore?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:55 amam so pissed off at America………. never buy any of your products for as long As I live ………….
Comment by Tobey Tall
OUch, now you wont buy….
Hmmm, can’t think of anything, maybe an iPod?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:59 amgoing to be pretty embarrassing for Dubbie to go 0-2 against the SCOTUS.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pmFT – looks like Tobey is going open source all the way!~
February 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pmTHIS story just adds to so many other reasons about why the bush administration so desperately needs removing… it is bushco’s shredding of the constitution that is putting us in this mess in the first place… by all means, appeal it to the supreme court, and let roberts and scalia take a crack at it…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
February 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pmTrip and all, forget Toby on this issue he’s out of the country…..The only made in America product’s I can find and afford are in the used stores like St.Vincent and good will….On this thread I am sad, we are sinking so low no one will get justice any more just like our vet’s will not get the medical they diserve….We are living in dreadful times and must fight to regain what has been lost……Blessings..Peace
February 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#8 TripMaster Monkey
Fords
February 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pmGee, civilian courts can not determin military actions and Military courts can not determin Civilian actions.
Wow, what a concept.
Come on, lets hear the 14th amendment arguements…3….2….1….
February 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWelcome to the New Nazi Germany.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:25 pmThe thing that will hurt America the most would be if the world were to punish the USA by refusing to use the US Dollar. I still believe the trigger for the Iraq invasion was Saddam’s announcement to move to the Euro for oil sales. Search out “petro dollars” If the world were to refuse the US dollar this would be the end of America.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pmTobey is a Red Hat kinda guy. He’s tall too.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:34 pmfor Dubbie to go 0-2 against the SCOTUS.
Actually, it would be 1-3. Don’t forget the “selection election”.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pmhttp://www.jibjab.com/jokebox/jokebox/jibjab/id/32517/jokeid/27044
Here is a cute picture I thought I would share to brighten some spirits around here.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pmHeh.
Thank you Rachel.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIt almost seems like a can of worms that is best kept closed, for this Administration.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pmGot any porn rachel, that always brightens my day.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pmFinally some good news!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pm>never buy any of your products for as long As I live
Thanks. you can stop using our TCP/IP network now.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:57 pmSpudger ~ Once I retire, I’ll have time to mess around with different OS and hardware configurations.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pmFor now I make a nice living programming in .NET.
Wow, what a concept.
Come on, lets hear the 14th amendment arguements…3….2….1….
Comment by hacker bob — February 20, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Sorry, bob, the 14th Amendment doesn’t fly here. Try 4th, 5th, and 6th.
The Geneva Convention no longer applies, because the MCA effectively pulled the U.S. out of the Geneva Convention.
But mostly this is an Article III issue. Can Congress strip federal jurisdiction and thus deprive people the protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments? The D.C. Court said yes.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThe Military Commissions Act of 2006 v. The United States Constitution(my apologies for the long post)
“These military commissions will provide a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.†said President Bush when signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, “I want to make one thing clear: The Military Commissions Act does not apply to American citizens.â€
However, American citizens can be labeled an “unlawful enemy combatant†under the MCA. An “unlawful enemy combatant†means “a person who has engaged in hostilities … against the United States …†The MCA distinguishes between “unlawful enemy combatants†which includes citizens and “alien unlawful enemy combatants†i.e. legal immigrants and non-citizens. Since “hostilities†is not defined, an American citizen participating in an anti-war rally could be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant.â€
The MCA establishes Military Commissions to try “alien unlawful enemy combatants.†Under the MCA, all legal immigrants lose the protection of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment refers to “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…†the 5th Amendment states, “no person shall be… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself …†and the 6th Amendment provides “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.†These Amendments apply to all persons, not just citizens.
The 4th Amendment no longer applies because under the MCA, “evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.†Evidence from warrantless wiretaps or illegal searches of homes would be admissible.
While a Military Commission may not put the accused on the stand to testify against himself, “a statement of the accused … shall not be excluded from trial … on the grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination.†The military judge may exclude the accused from any portion of a proceeding, and keep him or her from seeing classified evidence. In addition, the government may introduce evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods or activities by which [the evidence was acquired.]†In other words, whether torture was used may not be introduced in the trial, even if it was used on the accused him/herself. This claim of privilege will be considered in the judge’s chambers “and shall not be disclosed to the accused.†Since evidence of torture is not permitted to be introduced in a Military Commission trial, there is no enforcement mechanisms against the use of torture. In addition, Military Commission rulings on evidence are final, as “the Court of Appeals may act only with respect to matters of law.†The 5th Amendment has been repealed.
Further, “the military judge may close to the public all or a portion of a proceeding … to protect information … including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods or activities.†The 6th Amendment guarantee of a public trial is gone. So too is the right to a speedy trial, or any trial, for that matter. “No court … shall have jurisdiction to hear … an application for a writ of habeus corpus†filed by a non-citizen who has either been “determined to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant, or is awaiting such determination.†A person could be held for the rest of her or his natural life without ever knowing why.
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. Yet the Military Commissions have jurisdiction to try any offense under the MCA when committed by “an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.†Offenses such as conspiracy, which prior to October 17, 2006, would have been heard in a public trial in criminal court are now triable in secret tribunals with classified evidence.
The Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers no longer applies. Interpreting law used to be the responsibility of the Judicial Branch. Under the Constitution, Treaties are considered law. With the MCA, “the President has the authority … to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions …†Now the President interprets the law.
While legal immigrants are stripped of Constitutional protections under the MCA, even citizens have cause to be concerned. With the ability of the President to declare anyone an “unlawful enemy combatant†using classified evidence, there is no procedural safeguard against the government also declaring anyone to be a non-citizen, again using classified evidence.
This is what President Bush calls providing “a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.†The Supreme Court may disagree.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pmUnderstanding law requires that one to leave their thinking cap locked up.
For instance, how can a law passed in 2006 govern how people taken into custody in 2002 be applied. In the case involving Kennedy cousin Skakel he was tried and sentenced under law at the time the crime was commited rather than the more strict law that was in place at the time of the trial. How can that be flipped on its head this time around.
For a Judge to base his ruling on “the will of Congress” rather than the Constitution shows a Judge shirking responsibility. The Courts often shoot down the will of Congress. Ruling that the line item veto was unconstitutional is an obvious example. Law should not be situational in nature. The law should be the law. The Courts should be bound by presidence. A strict construcionist Supreme Court would overturn this ruling. My prediction is that this ruling will be upheld on a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, killing habus corpus after more than 200 years.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI can see why Briseadh na Faire is so upset that if she was discovered and detained that would be the end of her crusade against america.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pm31 –
Briseadh na Faire is male.
He knows it is more likely than not that the government already has a file on him.
His “crusade” as you call it, is to restore the United States to the vision of the founding fathers.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pmSorry for using the incorrect gender.
I am on the gov’t’s SSSS list. I don’t fly anymore because of it.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm33 – yet you continue to post support the government?
February 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmRead the article on why this is totally unconstitutional in the this month’s Vanity Fair. The JAG Corps is insensed at what congress did – write your congressperson!
February 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm35, do you mean this article?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/guantanamo200703?currentPage=9
February 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSorry for using the incorrect gender.
I am on the gov’t’s SSSS list. I don’t fly anymore because of it.
Comment by Vince P — February 20, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
People that are identified as unstable fanatic radicals with violent tendencies are typically those that end up on those lists. I can’t imagine how you got there /sarcasm.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pmBnF – thanks for the good report, and thanks big time for the courage to hang in there.
Splitting hairs to create a sub-class of “alien unlawful combatants” within a poorly defined class of “unlawful combatants” seems like a rather clever dodge even though it does make my skin crawl. What are the prospects for reversal?
February 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pmIf you mean a repeal of the MCA, I don’t think that’s likely while Bush is President. Any bill would have to survive a Republican filibuster, and the Republicans started off the 110th Congress by filibustering ethics reform, minimum wage and a debate on a non-binding resolution.
Assuming it survived a filibuster, it would also have to be veto-proof, that is, have a 2/3 majority in both houses. Then again, Bush could simply sign the bill and state that he will treat it as merely advisory, as it would infringe on his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief.
But the greater question is, will the Supreme Court say this law passes constitutional muster, or will it rule this, too, as unconstitutional.
That’s a close call. Since the law effectively removes the United States as a State Party to the Geneva Conventions, the Court may well say the detainees lack standing. But, and this is a big but, the Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to find a law constitutional when that law deprives someone of their constitutional rights without recourse to the courts. The limits on judicial review in the MCA are extremely narrow, and forbid the courts from looking into evidence used to convict. Evidence inadmissible in a civilian court can be used to execute someone following a military commission trial, and that evidence can never be reviewed by a civilian court under the provisions of the MCA.
So, what are the prospects for reversal? I’d say about five to four. But I wouldn’t go to Vegas on that; I could be wrong.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:02 pmWell they are trying to keep the plane from blowing up… so unfortunately because Muslims like to kill us in that mode of transporation, we all have to go through hell. Flying is inhumane. I refuse to do any more work trvel.
Though, the security is a lot less intrusive than , say, El Al. I went through their full security scrutiny once and it took hours.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pmThese terrorists are worse than any army. They operate without any concern for anyone’s human dignity and they certainly dont honor the G.C. I think keeping them holed up in gitmo until their brothers cease hostilities is totally appropiate. After all they’re main advantage is not being detectable and there needs to be a overwhelming sanction if you’re caught fighting in that way.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm“the Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to find a law constitutional when that law deprives someone of their constitutional rights without recourse to the courts.” — BnF
All that depends on getting a case before the Supreme Court.
However, it seems to me that the MCA makes it exceptionally difficult to get a challenge case before the Supreme Court. How do you challenge that which has already been declared to be unchallengeable?
The arrogance of this legislation is over the top. Now that it is clear to the entire world that the US has been deeply involved in illegal detentions, torture and assassination for decades, you would think there would be some sense of public shame, some demand for a move to make restitution. But no…what we get now is this sneering attitude of “what the fuck ya gonna do about it?”
“Living in the belly of the beast” should be the title of a dime store novel, not an accurate description of life in the USA.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pmVince, you need to scrub the shit out of your eyes. Don’t even think about responding until you have seen the following videos:
Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist
The War on Terror is a Fraud
Both of these virals are excerpts from the BBC documentary, “The Power of Nightmares”, which was banned from the US media after it was smeared by Peter Bergen, the self-proclaimed “expert” on terrorism. The entire documentary can be downloaded here.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pmFrom the title alone I wouldn’t waste my time.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:19 pmi knew you wouldn’t…liars only want to hear lies
fortunately, others will
February 20th, 2007 at 7:54 pmI like this part of the ruling:
Section 7(b)
could not be clearer. It states that “the amendment made by
subsection (a)†– which repeals habeas jurisdiction – applies to
“all cases, without exception†relating to any aspect of
detention.
It is almost as if the proponents of these words were
slamming their fists on the table shouting “When we say ‘all,’
we mean all – without exception!â€3
The detainees of course do not see it that way.
They say
Congress should have expressly stated in section 7(b) that
habeas cases were included among “all cases, without exception,
pending on or after†the MCA became law. Otherwise, the
MCA does not represent an “unambiguous statutory directive[]â€
to repeal habeas corpus jurisdiction. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S.
289, 299 (2001).
This is nonsense.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“Judge Not, Lest YE Be Judged!” If you don’t treat prisoners with the same equality of justice, how do you expect our soldiers held captive by the enemy to be treated? In the same KANGAROO-COURT MANNER? This kind of faulty reasoning a la Gonzales-Yoo-Addington-neocon shit is really going to be a problem when American soldiers are captured–how are we going to insist that they be treated in a fair manner if we ourselves are not subject to the universal laws of captives? Hmmmmm? What are we going to do? Threaten them so they bow to our demands? I DON’T THINK SO!!!!!
February 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pmHow long before Bush and Co start arresting us for posting views against the WH?Remember he can declare Marshall law anytime HE FEELS like folks.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pmIs this what our kids are fighting for in Iraq ??
Dutch: Oh please, Give that one up already. You leftards have been perseverating that one since John Ashcroft was AG. Well where are the freaking camps you were supposed to be in already?
How do adults seriously write this drivell…. do you actually believe it? What do you feel when you write it? How do you take yourself seriously knowing you’re writing about an alledged concern you ahve that is nothing more than paranoia?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pmHow do adults seriously write this drivell…. do you actually believe it? Comment by Vince P — February 20, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Funny considering the drivel you write, and seriously seem to believe.
What do you feel when you write it? How do you take yourself seriously knowing you’re writing about an alledged concern you ahve that is nothing more than paranoia? Comment by Vince P — February 20, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Ah, another Hypocritical post from the Queen of Islam. You’re such a catamite you freak.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:35 amJihad:
Since 2003
4,454 attacks
28,597 dead
Regressives dont want you to know. They are allied with the killers of Allah.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:47 amThe Constitution gives Congress incredible amount of authority and control over the court. As it should be.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:40 pmmoneyForex
i do agree but i don’t think that’s completely true. I’m so confused!
March 19th, 2008 at 5:54 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pmInes
Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:17 ammedical ins
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am