Monday, April 07, 2008

Think less of Habeas Corpus. It's more fun torturing us…

posted by Bill Arnett @ 12:28 PM Permalink

…As Ronnie Raygun would have said, "Well, mommy, there they go again."

See the NYT:
One of the dismal hallmarks of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror has been its obsession with avoiding outside scrutiny of its actions, including by the federal courts. In particular, it has attacked habeas corpus, the guarantee that prisoners can challenge their confinement before a judge. The administration is doing so again in an important Supreme Court case concerning the habeas rights of American citizens held abroad. The justices should rule that the detainees have a right to review by a United States court.

The two plaintiffs in the case, which was argued in March, are American civilians in Iraq. Shawqi Ahmad Omar and Mohammad Munaf are being held at an Army-run detention center in Baghdad, for transfer to the Iraqis on criminal charges. Mr. Munaf’s conviction on kidnapping charges was overturned, but he may face further charges. Mr. Omar was captured by the American military at his home in Baghdad, and was accused of harboring insurgent fighters. Both men claim to be innocent. Human rights groups warn that they could face torture if they are transferred to Iraqi custody.

Mr. Omar and Mr. Munaf are asking a federal court to review their confinement. Just four years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the habeas rights of an American citizen, Yaser Hamdi, who was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, and then imprisoned in Navy brigs in the United States.…[…]

The administration is no doubt hoping that the changes in the makeup of the court since Hamdi was decided will produce a different result. For the sake of civil liberties and the court’s own integrity, it should not. At the oral argument, Justice David Souter called the administration’s reasoning “a little scary.” Extremely scary is more like it.
Everything about our demented president is "extremely scary, isn't it? I know that I will sleep more soundly once bush is gone.

If you don't hear what you like change the court, right? "The administration is no doubt hoping that the changes in the makeup of the court since Hamdi was decided will produce a different result."

Why would the Court change precedent absent intervening and different circumstances?

This will make a good test case for the bush Supreme Court Justices. We will at last find out whether they stand for the rule of law or for the Republican Party.

And why bring a case that settled the issues being brought anew? What happened to precedent and law guiding the Court?

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home