NYT: Justice 5, Brutality 4

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Justice 5, Brutality 4
Published: June 13, 2008



For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detention.

Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.

The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.

The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

snip//

It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

[jgraz]

1. .

Nevermind

[babylonsister]

2. Ha! I know; duh. nt

[roseBudd]

3. But they told the fundies it was only about abortion

[madmusic]

4. These opinion pieces ignore the the first wound to habeas corpus

The assault of habeas started with http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/96-499.htm">ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996: A SUMMARY.

In his signing statement, President Clinton said, "Some have expressed the concern that two provisions of this important bill could be interpreted in a manner that would undercut meaningful Federal habeas corpus review. I have signed this bill because I am confident that the Federal courts will interpret these provisions to preserve independent review of Federal legal claims and the bedrock constitutional principle of an independent judiciary." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_n17_v32/ai_18565011">Signing Statement)

Well, of course the Rethugs would interpret it that way and try to expand it.