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

Habeus Corpus Delicti
Author: BobR    Date: 06/13/2008 12:05:10

Yesterday, the SCOTUS upheld the long-held rule of Habeus Corpus for the detainees in Gitmo, striking a blow to Bush's attempts to lock them up and throw away the key without so much as an arraignment. How long held is the idea of Habeus Corpus, and what exactly does it mean? From the Wiki:

'Habeas corpus' (IPA: /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on their behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject...

... Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying:

“ The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted. ”

The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous act had been passed in 1640 to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

So the codified basic tenet of justice that one may have one's day in court predates the birth of our country by over a century, and in practice by a couple more. Through every war that the United States have engaged in, begining with the Revolution, this principle has been in place. At no time in the past has it endangered our safety.

Justice Kennedy said as much in his majority opinion:
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.

The dissenting opinion from Scalia is stunning:
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the nation's commander in chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional republic. But it is this court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today...

...The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.

I don't think so.

Naturally, poor Bush is upset that the checks and balances of a trialateral government system sometimes doesn't allow him to get his way. He pouted:
"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."...

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Additional leglislation? Where does he think THAT'S going to come from? There is absolutely no way the Democratic-led congress is going to create any legislation to restrict human rights. Bush is just going to have to suck it up, and realize even the kings in medieval times didn't have the power he wants.

One additional thing this ruling DOES point out is just how important the upcoming election is. How different would this have turned out if McCain had appointed a justice to the court? The reactions by the candidates themselves tells that story:
In a campaign dominated by the economy and the Iraq War, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Thursday on detainees at Guantanamo marks a forceful reminder that John McCain promises one course and Barack Obama pledges another in picking future justices.

In the current controversy, McCain quickly expressed his disapproval of the opinion, while Obama issued a statement of support. It fell to outsiders to point out the broader implications in the race for the White House.

"With the replacement of a single justice from the majority ... today's four dissenters could become tomorrow's majority," said Nan Aron of the Alliance For Justice. The group supported the court's decision, which said detainees in the war on terror held at Guantanamo have the constitutional right to challenge their incarceration in the federal courts.

Security must exist "in fidelity to freedom's first principles," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a majority seeking to balance the nation's security needs with individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. He went on to criticize the Bush administration and Congress for yielding too much to the former at the expense of the latter.

Of the five justices who created a majority in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, and David Souter and Stephen Breyer are each 69. Kennedy is 71.

Our very Constitution - not safety from terrorists - is at stake here, and this case proves it. McCain CANNOT win in November.


 

283 comments (Latest Comment: 06/14/2008 03:32:23 by Mondobubba)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati