Judge dismisses scores of Guantanamo habeas cases

[kpete]

Source: McClatchy

Judge dismisses scores of Guantanamo habeas cases
By Carol Rosenberg | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed more than 100 habeas corpus lawsuits filed by former Guantanamo captives, ruling that because the Bush and Obama administrations had transferred them elsewhere, the courts need not decide whether the Pentagon imprisoned them illegally.

The ruling dismayed attorneys for some of the detainees who'd hoped any favorable U.S. court findings would help clear their clients of the stigma, travel restrictions and, in some instances, perhaps more jail time that resulted from their stay at Guantanamo.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan wrote that he was "not unsympathetic" to the former detainees' plight. "Detention for any length of time can be injurious. And certainly associations with Guantanamo tend to be negative," he wrote.

But the detainees' transfer from Guantanamo made their cases moot. "The court finds that petitioners no longer present a live case or controversy since a federal court cannot remedy the alleged collateral consequences of their prior detention at Guantanamo," he wrote.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/05/91651/judge-voids-scores-of-guantanamo.html

[tekisui]

1. An Obama administration panel has determined that about 50 of those should be held

An Obama administration panel has determined that about 50 of those should be held indefinitely without charges.

That is 50 too many.

[ima_sinnic]

2. thus the statement that habeas would be restored stat was a bald-faced lie

disgusting, and it WILL affect my choice on election day.

[bjobotts]

3. This is NOT Obama's nature. This is where the 'shadow government' becomes apparent

Obama is sitting around trying to find a way to get around these life threatening thugs without harm coming to those close to him. He needs his own "Blackwater". It's not his nature...remember he never could come up with an answer or justification for changing his FISA vote when he was a candidate that made a damn bit of sense. Something we don't know about caused him to change his vote and completely oppose his original stand.
Get paranoid...the corporate war machine operates in the dark.

[24601]

5. Bull, the corporate war machine strains its lips to kiss the ass of any

incumbent president and his minions because of the business they represent. Anyone who says it's the other way around has read too many conspiracy novels and has never seen defense contracting first hand.

[JDPriestly]

8. How do you know what Obama is sitting around trying to figure out?

I don't think any of us do.

Besides, what Obama is thinking about is not the issue, granting the constitutional right to habeas corpus is. Denying prisoners habeas corpus is morally wrong and violates the Constitution. Whether Obama's intentions are squeaky clean or filthy dirty is irrelevant.

Obama seems to be a nice guy. But when people become part of a group, they often succumb to peer pressure even if they are nice. It takes a very strong person to resist going along with a crowd. Obama seems to be nice enough, but he has shown over and over that he is not very strong.

[No Elephants]

9. BABO

Blame anybody But Obama.

Not his nature? How the hell do any of us judge his "nature" (whatever that means), except by what he and his administration do, say, not do or not say? As far as I can tell, his "nature" is to get himself elected, then try to make sure he gets re-elected, whatever it may take.

A President has to take responsibility for what he and his administration do and fail to do. I am not going to imagine reasons why he shouldn't have to take responsiblity.

[sandnsea]

7. Those are not part of the 105

The 105 in question in the article have all been released.

The 50 referred to at the end of the article still have their habeas status in question.

[midnight]

12. True.

[wroberts189]

4. Activist RW judge ignores 795 years of basic habeas corpus rights for the imprisoned...

knr

on edit


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[24601]

6. These are those formerly held by the pentagon - so a habeas case

has no meaning. For the Government to comply with a "Habeas Corpus" or "produce the body" it would first have to reacquire the body and return the person to US custody. Habeas cases are not civil suits for damages but to compel the government to present the person in court and prove why it's justified to continue the detention - a meaningless effort if detention has already been terminated.

[wroberts189]

11. "produce the body" was just a metaphor for justify the imprisonment.

Just because your no longer holding them is a weak argument. It is like saying ...well you not getting raped anymore so what is the problem?

But it also sets legal precedent... for those that are still held.

[No Elephants]

10. Two things.

First, the court is correct, to a point. If the government is not holding you in Gitmo any longer, your claim that the government has no right to be holding you in Gitmo is moot. And that is the basis of a habeas corpus case: the government has to show why it has a right to continue holding you.

This is not the court declaring the government had a right to hold these people in Gitmo. It is not the court ssying these people have no right to monetary damages for, say, false imprisonment.

HOWEVER, the court could have gone another route. It could have said, this is the kind of issue that could come up again and again, without ever being adjudicated because the government could always move the person before a court has the time to decide the case. So, we are going to ignore the mootness doctrine in this case and reach a decision that will apply to future detainees, even if the issue is moot as to plaintiffs.

This is the tack the court took in Roe v. Wade. In that case, Roe was no longer pregnant by the time the case reached the SCOTUS. Therefore, the issue whether Roe had a Constitutional right to a legal abortion or not was moot. But the Court decided the case anyway, so that a ruling on the issue could be on the books for those getting pregnant in the future.