Ctr. for Constitution Rights condemns removal of habeas, will challenge it

[marmar]

Hopefully the ACLU and every other civil liberties organization will join in. They'll need our support now more than ever.


Synopsis

On September 28, the Senate voted 51-48 against an amendment proposed by Senator Arlen Specter to the Military Commissions Act which would have preserved the right of habeas corpus. Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren issued the following statement in response:


"With the defeat of the Specter Amendment to the Military Commissions Act, Congress has sacrificed any semblance of a meaningful balance of power. Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged 'enemy combatants,' never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?

"Under this legislation, our clients at Guantánamo and hundreds of others detained by the U.S. around the world may remain locked up for the rest of their lives without ever having a chance to prove their innocence. Congress will be forfeiting one of the founding principles of the democratic tradition, and one of the most basic checks on executive power. Since the nation's founding, the writ has been suspended only four times-each only briefly and in a territory that was an active combat zone. This bill would suspend it for all non-citizens inside or outside of the U.S. - even if they have not been charged with any crime. This unprecedented and expansive suspension of habeas corpus is utterly unconstitutional, and we will challenge it."

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=3in4Yl9iUG&Content=848

[HereSince1628]

1. Gitmo Detainees Fight for US Constitution.

Think about that possible headline and tell me that the nation hasn't gone down a rabbit hole.

[marmar]

2. You've got to laugh to keep from crying...

:beer:

[madokie]

3. I wish this supreme court gave me a feeling of them doing whats right

but I fear they will let this pass, because they will say everything changed on 9/11. I hope I am wrong but something tells me I may not be though.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. You're Overanalyzing

No SCOTUS, especially one as full of "strict constructionists" as this one, can let this stand. It grants powers to the executive in direct contradiction to the letter of the constitution. I don't like Fat Tony, or Lapdog Clarence any more than you do. But, these guys made their bones by being strict constructionists or "originalists".

This whole legislative package is cynical electioneering by a group of thugs who KNEW it would be overturned in short order.
The Professor

[Tesha]

25. But they're not "strict constructionists"; they're just liars.

> No SCOTUS, especially one as full of "strict constructionists"
> as this one, can let this stand.

But those on the Court who claim that they're "strict
constructionists aren't really; they're just liars
who like to use fancy words to justify their Republican-
leaning votes.

If they *WERE* strict constructionists, they'd only give
Clarence Thomas 3/5 of a vote and he'd be the one who has
to get the coffee EVERY TIME. But he's perfectly okay with
those changes to the Constitution that favored himself.

Tesha

[ProfessorGAC]

26. The Constitution Has Been Ammended

Strict constructionists still consider the ammendments as part of the construction. So, your Thomas example is specious.
The Professor

[w4rma]

35. I agree with your premise, but your example is illogical. (nt)

[Tesha]

36. (It was a joke, cribbed from a Pat Oliphant cartoon, I think.) (NT)

[madokie]

33. thats what I was wanting to read, thanks

its all an electioneering gimmick, nothing more I hope

[uppityperson]

37. I will be watching closely as don't see how SCOTUS would grant

president their powers. We shall see.

[The Wizard]

41. Tony the Fixer

also wrote in opinions that the Equal Protection Clause should only be invoked in cases involving race. That all changed in Bush v Gore. They will do what James Baker tells them to do.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. I hope they challenge more than just the habeas section

There's so much wrong with this bill they really need to challenge the whole damn thing.

[Lasher]

7. The SCOTUS will throw out the whole thing

If they declare the HC part unconstitutional as they should, they will negate the whole bill. That's the way it works. By that time we'll control the House and/or the Senate and The Decider will be left without his free pass.

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thank God for the Center fo Constitutional Rights and the

the ACLU

[mom cat]

6. So right! Whatever few extra funds I might have are going to the heavy

lifters!

[marmar]

9. Truly. Seemingly they're all we have to protect us against despotism...

Congress certainly isn't going to do it.

[AX10]

8. I'll send them some money asap.

[MrCoffee]

10. Their suit will be dismissed for lack of standing.

I've been trying to come up with a potential plaintiff to bring suit in federal court to challenge this abomination, and I can't conceive of anyone with standing to sue. Congress effectively removed detainees from the jurisdiction of the courts. They can file a lawsuit, and it will be summarily dismissed by the court.

The court has no other choice.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. I Don't Think That's Right

They have standing because they are already representing people for whom this legislation has direct impact.

At least that's my read according to Mann & Roberts.
The Professor

[MrCoffee]

14. The bill took their clients out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. They Are Already Their Legal Representative

Laws cannot be enacted retroactively. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution. They, therefore, still have standing.
The Professor

[MrCoffee]

17. Congress can (and does) strip the Supreme Court..

of appellate jurisdiction in pending cases all the time.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I Disagree

Respectfully dissenting of course. They can't do that as long as the court is extant. And, if someone challenges those strip the SCOTUS, the laws will fail to pass muster. And THAT can and does happen all the time, and has for almost 200 years.
The Professor

[H2O Man]

21. Correct. n/t

[MrCoffee]

22. Congress can't play with the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS, they can

do whatever they want to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Please see Section 905j(b) of the Military Commissions Act. I posted it below.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Read My Reply To That

And we simply don't agree that Congress can do the things you claim. They can TRY anything. It doesn't mean they will be able to sustain that law.
The Professor

[hang a left]

13. They do have clients at Guantanamo

I think that they are the only ones who can bring this action. I am sure there are others that can join in.

[MrCoffee]

20. Section 905j(b) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 states...

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law , no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

Game, set and match.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Retroactivity Is Expresssly Forbidden In The Constitution

Game back on!
The Professor

[MrCoffee]

27. The hope that the courts can do something is all i have left...

I hope and pray that you are right. If Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm is still good law (i.e., if it can stand in the face of "national security"), we've got a fighting chance.

[davekriss]

28. ex post facto

applies to imposing new sanctions on actions that occurred before a bill is signed into law, and that seems to be the case here. Somewhere in the bill it implies this is doable because it is an act of clarification, not a proscription of new punishments, so it is not a cut & dried case. Whether or not we grant Bush the power of pre-Magna Carta kings depends on the judgment of the SCOTUS on this precise matter.

Note also that an ex post facto softening of punishments or criminality is allowed, meaning the portion that frees the Bush Regime of accountability for war crimes related to this bill is allowable, as it defines what in the past was criminal behavior as not criminal behavior now. I believe even if the SCOTUS strikes down this clearly unconstitutional bill, the Bush Regime will claim ex post facto if prosecuted for torture as it will claim it was legal from the moment Bush signed it to the moment the SCOTUS struck it down.

[MrCoffee]

29. You think the Army was playing CYA? Probably. n/t

[hang a left]

16. I checked their website and I didn't see where they said they

are going to challenge the legislation.

[marmar]

19. Check the above link, last sentence...

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=3in4Yl9iUG&Content=848

"Under this legislation, our clients at Guantánamo and hundreds of others detained by the U.S. around the world may remain locked up for the rest of their lives without ever having a chance to prove their innocence. Congress will be forfeiting one of the founding principles of the democratic tradition, and one of the most basic checks on executive power. Since the nation's founding, the writ has been suspended only four times-each only briefly and in a territory that was an active combat zone. This bill would suspend it for all non-citizens inside or outside of the U.S. - even if they have not been charged with any crime. This unprecedented and expansive suspension of habeas corpus is utterly unconstitutional, and we will challenge it."

[hang a left]

30. Thanks

I overlooked that.

[MindPilot]

31. The last hope I'm clinging to here is that the SC likes their power

as much as any other branch. Even through the justices have a distinctive right list they will not easily cede power to the executive or the legislative and overturning this legislation will hopefully be their way of making that statement.

[marmar]

32. IF not, the game is completely fixed...

and we live under despotic rule.

[Straight Shooter]

34. Please contact them and encourage their work. Donate if you can.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/about/contact.asp

For information on how to contribute:
[e-mail]

For information on our publications:
[e-mail]

General Information:
[e-mail]

Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

[marmar]

42. Thanx for the contact info!

:hi:

[ClintonTyree]

38. HIP, HIP HUFUCKINGRRAY!!

I'm glad someone has the courage to take on this administration and restore sanity to our government. :patriot: I'll donate all I can to them for challenging this travesty of a fucking law! This shit has to stop. NOW! :grr:

[Coexist]

39. Hell yeah.

Fight, please.

[Wilms]

40. K&R n/t