Yes - Habeas Corpus is truly dead for now - Judge UPHOLDS Bush Terror Law

[kpete]

Judge upholds detainee rights terror law By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal judge upheld the Bush administration's new terrorism law Wednesday, agreeing that Guantanamo Bay detainees do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson is the first to address the new Military Commissions Act and is a legal victory for the Bush administration at a time when it has been fending off criticism of the law from Democrats and libertarians.

................

Following Hamdan's victory, Bush asked for and got a new law that established military commissions to try enemy combatants and stripped them of the right to seek their freedom in U.S. courts.

..............

Though Robertson originally sided with Hamdan, he said that he no longer had jurisdiction to hear Hamdan's case because Congress clearly intended to keep such disputes out of federal courts. He said foreigners being held in overseas military prisons do not have the right to challenge their detention, a right people inside the country normally enjoy.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_ot/detainees_lawsuit

[ixion]

1. judges who do not believe in the rule of law, are not judges

by defintion.

just sayin'.

[MrCoffee]

5. The judge IS following the law...

he's EXACTLY right, Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the lower courts. This is why pissing away the filibuster for some god-forsaken amendments that had no hope in hell of passing was a colossal screw-up.

[BattyDem]

2. Any judge who rules against the basic principles of democracy and our Constitution ...

does NOT belong on the federal bench! :grr:

[MrCoffee]

6. He's upholding the basic rule of the federal judiciary,

which is that Congress can do whatever the hell they want with the jurisdiction of the lower courts.

[BattyDem]

11. Congress does not have the power to write laws that bypass the Constitution

This is not simply about stripping power away from the lower courts - this is about stripping power away from the Constitution ... and ultimately, the people.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

There is no "gray area" in that statement. There is nothing that is open to interpretation, as the intent is very clear. There has been no rebellion or invasion. There is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens or between "everyday criminals" and terrorists. The law is the law ... period - and any judge who chooses to ignore it does not belong on the bench.

[Patsy Stone]

3. If there aren't cases to appeal

this will never get to the SCOTUS or get Congress moving quicker on killing this piece of dreck legislation. And it is the law, unfortunately, so the judge has to uphold it.

[Junkdrawer]

4. So now the Supremes can simply refuse to hear the case....

Leahy has a new law in the wings...if we can get a Democratic Senate sworn in...

[MrCoffee]

7. They don't have to refuse, because it'll never get there.

[truth2power]

8. "overseas military prisons"...

Either Gitmo is US territory or it isn't. Seems like I've seen the Administration claim either/or, as it suits them.

Which is it? Just askin'...

[BattyDem]

12. Exactly. It either belongs to us or it doesn't.

If it does, how is it that Constitutional protections don't apply to the people being held there? :shrug:

[Rex]

9. Wow. The judge just got overruled by the 109th.

Sick pigs, human rights mean nothing to our government.

[rumpel]

10. then , they should have a right to take it to the Hague n/t

:mad:

[jcv1]

13. Judge Robertson was a Clinton appointee

His hands are tied now but things will change with the 110th....

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html

[riderinthestorm]

21. I just don't know if the 110th will get on this. There are soooo many other items on the agenda

and the rights of Gitmo detainees (crucially important) may get the short shaft for now.

:cry:

[nam78_two]

14. K&R.nt

[enough]

15. See Glenn Greenwald's analysis. A "major victory" for Bush administration.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/judicial-victory-for-leader.html

A judicial victory for the Leader

The first court decision (.pdf) to interpret and apply the legislative atrocity known as the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" was issued yesterday in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The decision was a major victory for the Bush administration's attempt to vest the President with the power to imprison individuals -- even for life -- without according them any meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of their imprisonment.

The district court ruled that (1) the MCA successfully stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by "war on terrorism" detainees, and (2) under controlling Supreme Court precedent, "enemy aliens" who have no substantial connection to the U.S. (i.e., never resided inside the U.S.) have no constitutional right to seek habeas corpus review. As a result, the court dismissed the case of the Guantanamo detainee seeking habeas review here and, in essence, upheld the Bush administration's power to detain such "enemy combatants" forever while denying the detainees all access to our courts.

snip> MUCH more

[Chimichurri]

17. Awesome comment over at Glenn Greenwald's blog:

Put another way, it seeks to vest the maximum possible power in the President to order people imprisoned -- even for life -- with no opportunity to contest the validity of the accusations against them or the treatment to which they are subjected. That, as has been repeatedly noted, is a power which not even the British King possessed.

Let’s see, so the President can sentence someone to “life imprisonment” with no trial and no verdict - ah, it’s the “sentence first” theory of jurisprudence – that’s quite famous actually.

The British King may not have possessed that kind of power, but the Queen of Hearts did.

No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

Pretty much where we are today isn’t it?
zack | 12.14.06 - 7:59 am

[BuyingThyme]

16. As long as the powder is dry, we'll be just fine.

:silly: :crazy:

[Supersedeas]

18. So, it begins again...reshaping American values

[yodermon]

19. OMG Read this quote:

What is so radical and indescribably regressive is the Congress' enactment of a law which expressly denies habeas rights to everyone in the world other than U.S. citizens. Not only did the Founders repeatedly emphasize that the right of habeas corpus is the most critical safeguard against tyranny from the Executive branch (and never drew any distinction between citizens and non-citizens), but the statute granting habeas jurisdiction to federal courts (sec. 2241) was the very first statute ever enacted by the U.S. (in 1789) which bestowed jurisdiction to the federal courts. That is how paramount a right the Founders believed habeas petitions to be.

It is NOT a violation of US Law to detain -FOREVER- ANY foreigner found on foreign soil who has been determined solely by the President of the United States to be an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant".

If you're in rice paddy in Thailand and King George decides you need to be locked up, it is perfectly legal for him to do so.

Did I get that right?

[Qutzupalotl]

20. citizens vs. non-citizens

I never understood where the idea arose that citizenship grants rights. What part of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" don't they understand? That means ALL people, everywhere! It means the rights come not from any state, but by virtue of one's human existence! They CANNOT be legally denied. This "granting" of special rights for our citizens is against the intent of the founders, as I see it.

[enough]

22. kick