[Gymngatagaica]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision in President Bush's anti-terrorism law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

The ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.

The Military Commissions Act was crafted in response to that decision and the president hailed it as a necessary tool for bringing terror suspects to justice.

Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as unconstitutional and a violation of American values. The law allows the government to indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as "enemy combatants" and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics.

But the most criticized provision of the law was the one stripping U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they were being held illegally.

Attorneys argued that the detainees aren't covered by that provision and that the law is unconstitutional.

"The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.

U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution.

Randolph and Judge David B. Sentelle ordered that the hundreds of cases pending in the lower courts be dismissed.

Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, saying the cases should proceed.

"District courts are well able to adjust these proceedings in light of the government's significant interests in guarding national security," Rogers wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/de....ap/index.html

This clears the way for the USSC to examine the Act. Hopefully, they will be doing so in a timely fashion.

Matt

[JTS_tv]

Jesus. What happened to my country?

[Gymngatagaica]

Good question. Personally, I am adamantly opposed to the elimination of Habeas Corpus.

Matt

[JTS_tv]

See, here's something that both sides can reach across the aisle on. What is happening to the Constitution is absolutely terrifying. Once we lose the most basic rights provided therein, we lose everything that America is/was supposed to be about.

[soryalomop]

Pretty scary stuff going on these days.

[Gymngatagaica]

Curiously, though, when the previous admin was trampling the 2nd Amendment, not much of a peep of agreement.

At least we can come together to defend some parts of the Constitution. There's still hope.

Matt

[casinobonusa]

I expect nothing less from this administration. Nothing less >shaking head<

[TOD4wDTQ]

Ok I hear the dissenting voices. Would anyone care to explain how exactly this ruling hurts americans?

Varus

[Gymngatagaica]

[quote]I expect nothing less from this administration. Nothing less >shaking head

[Gymngatagaica]

Ok I hear the dissenting voices. Would anyone care to explain how exactly this ruling hurts americans?

Varus

The right of Habeas Corpus is fundamental to our legal system, and has been since the very first days of the republic.

When we allow our response to terrorism to alter the very foundation of our system of jurisprudence, then the terrorists win.

In and of itself, though, this ruling does not harm Americans. It is simply a necessary hurdle to get the issue before the USSC for final and definitive resolution.

Matt

[Seiblybiozy]

Good question. Personally, I am adamantly opposed to the elimination of Habeas Corpus.

Matt

I'm confused, I thought Habeas Corpus states that they are entitled to a hearing to challenge their custody, but it doesn't state that they have a right to the U.S. courts.
Wouldn’t the Military courts provide the said hearings ?

[TOD4wDTQ]

When we allow our response to terrorism to alter the very foundation of our system of jurisprudence, then the terrorists win.

Nearly every war the US engages in stretches the limits of the constitution. H*ll Lincoln jailed congressmen who dissented. Roosevelt interned thousands of Japs. The point is the country seems to have recovered from these momentary lapses. Why would anyone consider th is any differently?

Varus

[casinobonusa]

Instead of just popping with another "gosh, this administration is awful" post, why not look a little deeper and discuss the ISSUE at hand?

Matt

Might be because this is all derrived from the President's Terrorism Toolbox. Frankly, I'm tired of the terrorist bell ringing because everytime something in our laws is altered, they get closer to winning and we begin to think everyone is the enemy. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These things aren't proven by torture. They are done in a court of law and we keep punishing people who could very well be innocent. Everyone who answers to our courts should have the chance to challenge the charges. This is just more useless garbage which allows ourselves to get deeper and deeper in shit every effing time. Because these people aren't born on US soil doesn't mean they aren't human.

[Atmotteenrift]

ehhhh, I'll loose no sleep over this.

[Heopretg2006]

This is just more useless garbage which allows ourselves to get deeper and deeper in shit every effing time. Because these people aren't born on US soil doesn't mean they aren't human.

Why are liberals always so concerned with what other people think? Doesn't doing the right thing count for something? When 1 in 6 europeans live in poverty they are the absolutely last peoples opinions we should give a d*mn about.

And because people aren't born on US soil doesn't mean they're not human just that they don't enjoy the same rights and priveleges US citizens do.

Varus

[inhitoemits]

If they were legal combatants, they would have more rights. That is the risk they took fighting in the manner they did.

[DuesTyr]

I disagree - simply because the US administration disagrees with the manner does not mean they should be denied the right to a fair trial.

It's called the rules of war. According to them, we are totally in our rights. In fact, we would be totally within our rights to shoot them out-of-hand.

[inhitoemits]

They are prisoners of war. I don't think prisoners of war can be shot out of hand, and I don't think the law would allow for it either.

Wrong. According to the Third Geneva Convention, Article 4, Section 1, Paragraph 2, says

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[inhitoemits]

Other than the second condition, I see no reason why they couldn't fit the criteria, though it could be argued they also had an "uniform" ... if it can be called that, of course.

They certainly do not have a uniform, and certainly do not carry their arms openly. Besides that, their targeting of civilians certainly violates the fourth criteria.

[Yfclciak]

Habeaus Corpus was NEVER intended to include enemy combatants or POWs.

It was the right decision.

Not only is it correct in form, but in common sense. Were we to capture 300,000 enemy combatants, it would be impossible to grant them habeaus corpus rights and give them courtroom trials.

Impossible.

This was the only decision that could be reached without crippling our ability to take prisoners of war AT ALL.

And the SC has upheld that they are NOT POW's, although Congress has demanded they be "treated" as POWs.