Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases

[Freedom_from_Chains]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.


The new law already has been challenged as unconstitutional by lawyers representing the petitioners. The issue of detainee rights is likely to reach the Supreme Court for a third time.

Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.

[Fridays Child]

1. This is gonna get interesting.

Unitary executive, my ass. That term appears NOWHERE in the Constitution.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Yea, when they start arresting Americans under this law.

Or as our leader would say, Mericans. You know we're in trouble when our president can't even say the name of the country he is president of.

[Sherman A1]

3. Some of those activist judges

may decide differently and we could wind up with a very interesting Constitutional Crisis to add to the several other ones brought to you by Mr. Bush & Company.

[wholetruth00]

4. If i were a Dem candidate I would cite this law as proof that Bush

has become a tyrant and thwarted our very own Constitution with the help of Republican corporate stooges.

[The Brethren]

6. Exactly

I is appalling that this power hungry jerk has not been impeached yet for a number of reasons but 2 very important ones to start: first he took an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution which he has systematically worked to destroy. And secondly, in doing so and by giving himself unchecked power, he has shown himself to be incompetent in the role as our President and a traitor to his own people. So why on earth hasn't he been charged and removed from power - because of the majority of our spineless legislators who sign any bill he demands and are afraid to oppose him.

I'm beginning to think that one possible solution for our next Presidency, if possible, might be a Constitutionalist President. I'm not sure what his/her views would be on all issues, but their main focus would be to follow the Constitution to the letter - even if it's only for one term. And if that is not the best solution, then perhaps as one poster mentioned earlier - to make more drastic changes, such as removing the role of having one person as our President and replacing it with a parliament - specifically with an equal number of members from each leading party, required each election, with equal power. In the meantime, bush has to be impeached - he's out of control and I can only imagine what more he will do over the next 2 yrs.

[The Brethren]

5. I wonder when the Justices

will talk amongst themselves and yell "MUTINY!" And question how long the plank is. Maybe they already are..........

[Heidi]

7. Locking.

Duplicate of: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2571182