About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Habeas Corpus on Life Support
Author: BobR    Date: 03/26/2008 12:43:46

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


- Ammendments V and VI of the U.S. Constitution...

So what does this mean for U.S. Citizens detained overseas by U.S. forces? Apparently, nothing. Numerous Americans have been "captured" by U.S. forces, including Yaser Hamdi in 2001 (son of a Saudi Arabian oil worker) and Bilal Hussein in 2006 (AP Photographer):
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a case that could significantly affect the legal rights of American civilians captured in Iraq.
The dispute tests whether U.S. citizens taken into custody and held by the U.S. military have access to federal courts to challenge their detention. It was brought by two Arab-Americans in custody in Baghdad, one of whom an Iraqi court sentenced to death for an alleged kidnapping.

Normally, U.S. citizens have a right to challenge their detention before a judge. The U.S. government says the men should be denied a hearing because they are officially held by the Multi-National Force-Iraq, a United Nations-mandated force led by the United States but joined by many countries...

So who are these other two, and what is the Bush Administration's argument? In another example of the loss of habeas corpus:
Separately detained by American-led military forces in Iraq, Mohammad Munaf and Shwaqi Omar are U.S. citizens who seek access to the basic procedural safeguards afforded by the Constitution – judicial review of their detention through the writ of habeas corpus. Together, both cases ask the Court to adopt a firm rule that allows an American citizen to challenge his or her detention in federal court whenever he or she is held in the custody of American officials...

------

Attorneys for the Bush Administration have argued that the American military personnel detaining Mr. Munaf and Mr. Omar are participating in a multi-national force, and that consequently, United States courts have no jurisdiction to consider the challenges to these detentions. But the executive branch’s position would create perverse incentives to detain American citizens under the auspices of multinational military operations as a way to circumvent judicial review. Contrary to the Administration’s arguments, U.S. authorities should not be permitted to indefinitely hold and interrogate American citizens simply because the arresting forces operate with a United Nations or similar international mandate. Indeed, such interpretations would allow the government to arrest American citizens around the world with impunity and deny them the due process rights afforded by their national judicial system simply by convening the arresting authority under an international charter.
(bold-face mine)

How will the Supreme Court rule? If another recent ruling is any indication, it won't be in favor of the accused:
States win over President on criminal law issue:
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

On first blush, this seems like the SCOTUS rebuked the power of the Executive branch, which is a good thing. The problem is, this time, the Bush Administration was doing the right thing. They were trying to ensure the individual states adhered to a treaty signed by the United States, one that prevents states like Texas from executing foreigners without ensuring they got a fair trial.

This is another example of why it is so important we get a Democrat (and a REAL one, not a fake one) in the White House - the SCOTUS is the last hope for the oppressed, and that hope is dwindling...

 

292 comments (Latest Comment: 03/27/2008 03:15:10 by IzzyBitz)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati