Public Voice Network
- WP Help 66
- digits 33
- wicked shitz
- Minibook Free Wallpapers
- Nine to Five (Nude Photos… 11
- iPhone ? 44
- NYC let's hang out 1313
- Show some old work (Revis… 7171
- camera question (or two) 1313
- bananartista 1212
- from an old post.. 22
- So Cal QBNrs 33
- QBN Mugs '08 315315
- Hello QBN 1818
- Favorite fragrance? 5858
- Art directing 2323
- Lifefood Gourmet - Miami 1111
- Conservative Slogan 2020
- Best place for design 1717
- and what...... 11
- blog 2473524735
- Russell Brand 1111
- damn notes!! 1313
- opening act 22
Habeas Corpus 88 Responses
Last post: 2 months, 3 weeks ago | Thread started: Jun 12, 08, 11:35 a.m.
- mrdobolina
Criminal Procedure
Habeas corpus; enemy combatantsEnemy combatants held at Guantanamo may seek a writ of habeas corpus.
Based on Eisentrager, supra, at 777, and the Court's reasoning in its other extraterritoriality opinions, at least three factors are relevant in determining the Suspension Clause's reach: (1) the detainees' citizenship and status and the adequacy of the process through which that status was determined; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ. Application of this framework reveals, first, that petitioners' status is in dispute: They are not American citizens, but deny they are enemy combatants; and although they have been afforded some process in CSRT proceedings, there has been no Eisentrager-style trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war. Second, while the sites of petitioners' apprehension and detention weigh against finding they have Suspension Clause rights, there are critical differences between Eisentrager's German prison, circa 1950, and the Guantanamo Naval Station in 2008, given the Government's absolute and indefinite control over the naval station. Third, although the Court is sensitive to the financial and administrative costs of holding the Suspension Clause applicable in a case of military detention abroad, these factors are not dispositive because the Government presents no credible arguments that the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas courts had jurisdiction. The situation in Eisentrager was far different, given the historical context and nature of the military's mission in post-War Germany. 476 F. 3d 981, reversed and remanded.
06-1195 & 06-1196 Boumediene v. Bush
Kennedy, J.; Souter, J., concurring; Roberts, C.J., dissenting; Scalia, J., dissenting.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/op… (PDF)- Jun 12, 08, 11:35 a.m. – Permalink
- mrdobolina
Landmark case
- Dog-earJun 12, 08, 12:08 p.m. – Permalink
- mrdobolina
A little background:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
- Dog-earJun 12, 08, 12:09 p.m. – Permalink
- mrdobolina
because people are complacent. thing is it won 5-4. If McCain becomes president, the gang of four will become the gang of 5 and this wouldn't have passed.
- Dog-earJun 12, 08, 12:15 p.m. – Permalink
- TheBlueOne
Bush to Supreme Court: No, fuck YOU.
No, no..fuck YOU.
"U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey says the Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo detainees won’t affect military trials against enemy combatants.
Mukasey, speaking Friday at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers, said he was disappointed with the decision.
But he told reporters it won’t affect military trials to be held at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."http://ap.google.com/article/ALe…
They've acted like kings for 7 1/2 years, why stop now.
- Dog-earJun 13, 08, 11:59 a.m. – Permalink
