Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In Landmark Case, Court Upholds Habeas Corpus Rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:40 PM
Original message
In Landmark Case, Court Upholds Habeas Corpus Rights
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0612-03.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 12, 2007
8:46 AM


CONTACT: Brennan Center For Justice
Susan Lehman, 212-998-6318
Mike Webb, 212-998-6746
Jonathan Hafetz, 212-998-6289

In Landmark Case, Court Upholds Habeas Corpus Rights


WASHINGTON - JUNE 12 - Yesterday, in a watershed case, a federal appeals court ruled Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal resident of the United States, could not be detained indefinitely, without charge.

In a two to one ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held the President lacks legal authority to detain Mr. al-Maari without charge; all three judges ruled that Mr. al-Maari is entitled to traditional habeas corpus protections which give him the right to challenge his detainment in a U.S. Court.

"This is a huge victory" said Jonathan Hafetz, litigation director of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Project and the lead counsel in the case. "The ruling puts the United States where it belongs: in full support of fundamental habeas corpus rights even in times of perceived emergency. The Court soundly and rightly rejected the Administration's attempt to treat the globe as a battlefield that is exempt from rule of law."

"The decision protects legal residents and citizens from secret detention. In the American tradition, the Court found that the President can not expand his power, even in times of terror, above and beyond the other co-equal branches of the government," said Mr. Hafetz.

Al-Marri came to the United States with his wife and five children to obtain a masters degree at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. In December 2001, he was arrested and charged with credit card fraud and other criminal offenses. Al-Marri asserted his innocence and prepared to contest the charges at trial. But, in June 2003, shortly before his trial was scheduled to commence, and on the eve of a hearing to suppress illegally seized evidence, the President signed a one-page order declaring al-Marri an "enemy combatant" and directing his transfer to a Navy Brig in South Carolina, where he been held incommunicado and interrogated ever since. At the Brig, al-Marri was subjected to torture and and degrading treatment. He remains in solitary confinement at the Brig and has not seen or spoken with his family for more than five years.

Mr. Al-Marri challenged the President's assertion of unchecked executive detention power over all individuals in the United States. In the administration's view, the President has the authority to arrest and detain individuals without charge, without due process, and without meaningful judicial review. The Court rejected this view.

Hafetz added, "We're pleased the court saw through the government's stunning position in this case. Had it not, the executive could effectively disappear people by picking up any immigrant in this country, locking them in a military jail, and holding the keys to the courthouse. This is exactly what separates a country that is democratic and committed to the rule of law from a country that is a police state."

Jonathan Hafetz is available to discuss this case. Please contact the Brennan Center to arrange an interview.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Take THAT BushCo!
Such good news! Thanks for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. The dissenting judge was bush appointee.
Edited on Tue Jun-12-07 03:53 PM by Jim__
bushco is appealing this to the entire 4th circuit. Does anyone know the make-up of the 4th circuit? How many bush appointees? It's hard to believe that any judge would vote against habeas corpus and due process, but I have a fear that any of bush's appointees will back him.

On edit - I checked - if I'm reading it right, the 4th circuit is made up of 9 repuke appointees and 6 dems. Hopefully, the repukes appointed before bush have some integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Here's the composition of the Fourth Circuit Court ...
Edited on Tue Jun-12-07 06:20 PM by TahitiNut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court

William Walter Wilkins 1986–present Reagan
H. Emory Widener, Jr. 1972–present Nixon
James Harvie Wilkinson III 1984–present Reagan
Paul V. Niemeyer 1990–present G.H.W. Bush
Karen J. Williams 1992–present G.H.W. Bush
M. Blane Michael 1993–present Clinton
Diana Jane Gribbon Motz 1994–present Clinton
William Byrd Traxler, Jr. 1998–present Clinton
Robert Bruce King 1998–present Clinton
Roger L. Gregory 2000–present Clinton/G.W. Bush
Dennis W. Shedd 2002–present G.W. Bush
Allyson Kay Duncan 2003–present G.W. Bush
James Dickson Phillips, Jr. 1978–1994 Carter
Robert Foster Chapman 1981–1991 Reagan
Clyde H. Hamilton 1991–1999 G.H.W. Bush


The Fourth Circuit is, iirc, the second most conservative circuit in the nation - exceeded only by the D.C. Circuit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Thanks! I'm hoping some of the older repukes have some integrity - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Woot!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. They'll appeal it to the Supreme Court and let the Bush appointees reverse it
That's how these bastards work in case anyone hasn't already noticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. And he isn't even a citizen...amazing..
Jose Padilla is a US Citizen and they made him an enemy combatant and denied him his right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Judicial branch is ready for these goons
although I'm not sure about the Supremes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Proud to be the 5th rec....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Check out this KO video.
There's no way they could not uphold Habeas. It's bedrock.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x34194
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. This made my week.
This is EXCELLENT news. I would hope that Kennedy would vote with the good guys if this goes to the SCOTUS.

Thanks babylonsister - I needed this today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. As it should be in My America
One down, and many more rights that need restoring.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. It is sad that this is considered a watershed ruling...
Habeas Corpus is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution so it would seem this case would be a no brainer. But when we have these so called "strict constructionist" judges who are not quite so strict when their GOP masters tell them it is okay to ignore the Constitution in this case, well then our basic protections don't seem to protect us too well in the court system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC