At the heart of this case is the government's attempt to stand above the law," said Judge John J. Gibbons, who argued Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme Court in 2004. "The U.S. government has forcibly seized and jailed these men, and held them under its exclusive control for nearly six years without charges. It is precisely such abuse of government authority and disregard for the law that the Constitution, habeas corpus, and the courts are designed to restrain." GUANTÁNAMO SUPREME COURT BRIEF FILED TODAY ARGUES THAT EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT ABOVE THE RULE OF LAWBrief Argues Detainees in U.S. Custody Possess Fundamental Constitutional Rights
August 24, 2007, New York, NY - Today, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) attorneys and co-counsel submitted a ground-breaking brief to the Supreme Court in the case that will determine whether detainees at Guantánamo possess the fundamental constitutional rights to due process and habeas corpus.
The brief was filed on behalf of men from the first habeas corpus petitions submitted immediately after the landmark 2004 Supreme Court decision in CCR's case Rasul v. Bush. Al Odah v. United States, as the case is now called, has been consolidated with a related case, Boumediene v. Bush; both challenge the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which attempted to strip away the statutory right to habeas corpus the Supreme Court recognized in 2004 and replace it with a far more limited review process set up by the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA).
"These men have been held unlawfully in abusive conditions while the courts and Congress debate whether they should have any rights," said CCR President Michael Ratner. "We have been back and forth in the courts as the government has tried one maneuver after another to avoid the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling that the detainees are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. We hope the Supreme Court will end this travesty once and for all, and provide full, fair and prompt hearings, which are the very foundation of a free society." The Court ruled in Rasul that the Guantánamo detainees' right to habeas corpus was consistent with the common law. Given that the U.S. Constitution protects the common law writ of habeas,
the brief filed today argues that the government is attempting to stand above the law and the Constitution of the United States when it imprisons people and denies them the right to have courts review the legality of their detention. Because there is no invasion or rebellion within our borders, under the Constitution Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus.
more at:
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/newsroom/releases/pReleases.asp?ObjID=ykF81tQQfJ&Content=1095Nearly 20 amicus briefs were also filed in support of the cases today, from a broad range of sources that include former federal judges, former JAG officers, legal historians, the bi-partisan Constitution Project, and 383 UK and European parliamentarians.