AP: Judge upholds detainee rights terror law

[Eugene]

Posted on Wed, Dec. 13, 2006

Judge upholds detainee rights terror law
MATT APUZZO
Associated Press

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 rejects a legal challenge by Salim
Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden whose case prompted the Supreme Court
to strike down the Bush administration's policy on detainees last year.

Following that ruling, Bush pushed 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.

Robertson said Congress clearly intended to keep cases such as Hamdan's out of federal
courts and, because of that, he no longer has jurisdiction to hear it.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/16231853.htm

[mike_c]

1. this is a terrible day for human rights....

Damn.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. "Gosh and golly, folks, I know it's unconstitutional . . ."

". . . but they said I wasn't allowed to say that, so my hands are tied."

Anyone know who appointed this clown?

[feminazi]

7. the article says he was a clinton appointment

*

[Geoff R. Casavant]

8. Must have been post-1994

When Clinton was forced to appoint spineless milquetoasts to get them past the Senate. :sarcasm:

[seriousstan]

10. December 1994

[Geoff R. Casavant]

11. Aaaaaand, at 0 for 2 . . .

I think I'm going to withdraw from this particular discussion before I embarrass myself further. :-)

[seriousstan]

12. WAIT, would you like to play the lightning round where the questions are harder

but the prizes are doubled?

[SlipperySlope]

3. Sad but true...

The Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, found the tribunals illegal because they hadn't been authorized by Congress. Now, thanks to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, these tribunals have been authorized by Congress.

The Judge in this case is basically following orders. He could certainly resist, and claim jurisdiction, but he would probably get his hand slapped hard.

So I wonder, now that the Dems have the house and the senate, will this deed be reversed?

[The Stranger]

21. No, sad but untrue.

There are any number of good arguments against Congress' seeking to revoke jurisdiction while a case is in progress, and winning arguments against Congress' attempt to revoke jurisdiction from the Supreme Court.

[treestar]

23. There is still the issue of whether they are constitutional or not

Even something authorized by Congress can be found to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will dodge the constitutional question if it is possible to resolve a case otherwise. So with this one they may not be able to find it invalid any other way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. And the United States sinks lower still

Next on the agenda: A law allowing the Department of Homeland Security to label suspected terrorists and traitors as "enemy combatants," to be followed by a Supreme Court ruling that allows secret tribunals to determine who is and who is not suspected of terrorism and treason.

[HuffleClaw]

5. utter madness

"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."

i can't see how that is remotely legal. a ruling goes against bush so they simply make a NEW law? i doubt the supreme court will permit such a thing.

[rodeodance]

6. Gondi works for Bush, not the people

[librechik]

9. WTF

why are RWers scared of judges? They usually act like this.

Who is America now?

[enough]

13. Not sure what's happening to DU when this event is dropping below the horizon.

Quote from yahoo article

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

snip:

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.

"This is the first time in the history of this country that a court has held that a man may be held by our government in a place where no law applies," said Barbara Olshansky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has handled many detainee cases.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kathleen Blomquist said the agency was pleased with the ruling. Government lawyers have repeatedly argued that Guantanamo Bay detainees have no right to use U.S. courts. Blomquist noted that the new law allows detainees to challenge their detention before military tribunals, then contest the tribunal's ruling before a Washington appeals court.

"That is more process than the United States has ever provided to enemy combatants in our past conflicts," Blomquist said.

snip>

[jillan]

14. A win for terra - Judge upholds * Terror Law

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4400771.html

Dec. 13, 2006, 7:18PM
Judge upholds detainee rights terror law


By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press


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.

Robertson rejected a legal challenge by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden whose case prompted the Supreme Court to strike down the Bush administration's policy on detainees last year.

more @ link....

[AlCzervik]

15. how many inmates at GITMO actually have any charges filed against them?

this is complete lunacy.

[jillan]

17. What I wonder

Is how many people are at Gitmo?

Goodbye human rights.

[The Stranger]

22. Zero.

Where would a prosecutor file the charges? At a table where a bunch of military men are sitting? What kind of Stalinist Totalitarian, political prisoner shit is that?

[Me-Oh-My]

16. Another sad

amongst the other 6 years of sad days.
But there is no way this ruling applies to US Citizens at Guantanamo. Remember, they are inalienable rights. I am sure the lawyers are not stopping at this first level. This is a SCOTUS issue and not one for an appelate judge.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. The judge needs to go back to ConLaw-101

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.

This goes all the way back to the precedent set in Marbury vs. Madison which established judicial review. All federal laws are subject to judicial review.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."

The writ of habeas corpus is a right enshrined in Article I of the Constitution:

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 currently no rebellion in the United States (though Baby Bush may disagree with that view given the recent election results) and we have NOT been invaded.

Any law passed by the congress that quashes the judiciary's power to review laws for adherence to the Constitution is, prima facia, unconstitutional.

To quote Doctor Leonard "I'm a doctor, not a lawyer" McCoy, "A blind man could see it with a cane."

[hang a left]

20. So hopefully this case will make it to the SC for the final

detemination. Then we will know if we are screwed or not....right?

[Kelvin Mace]

24. That would depend on how Kennedy votes

He's the swing.

Scalito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will vote for dictatorship.

[Solly Mack]

19. Thank McCain,Graham, Warner and everyone who voted

for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. (aka - The Torture is A-OK, Who needs Habeas Corpus Bill)

[annabanana]

25. Kicking in sorrow and anger. . . . . n/t