President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act in October, which ordered the suspension of habeas corpus rights to any foreign national detainee labeled 'enemy combatant.' Recently, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision saying it does not "violate the Suspension Clause [Art. I, §9, cl.2 text] of the US Constitution." The case is expected to go to the Supreme Court.
You can read the entire case at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/federal-appeals-court-upholds-mca.php.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I see too possible issues here:
1. Can Congress/President prove that there is sufficient public safety concerns to warrant the removal of the right to habeas?
2. Regardless of whether Congress/President has the right, does the Supreme Court have the right to review the issue?
1. Unfortunately, while I am opposed to this action, I don't see how the government couldn't prove in some manner that there is an issue of public safety.
2. It was decided in Hamdan that the DTA did not alter the courts apellate jurisdiction for pending cases on this matter. It seems to me that the MCA is Congress' way of circumventing altering their appelate jurisdiction which can't be done because they have already tried such a case. This was decide in McCardle when Chase said that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised."
So in all, I think that the court should be allowed to hear the cases but I also think that the government should be able to prove a concern for public safety.
My only hope is that they would have to prove a concern specific to each individual and that they would not be able to testify for a general concern for safety. That would be a great miscarriage of justice and would create a dangerous precedent. Any person could henceforth be charge and held without habeas corpus based on the government's general concern for public safety.
If each person is given their separate trial then I believe it would be much harder for the government to prove the need for each one to have such a right removed.
dar dar I meant "two posible issues here" I have to remember to preview before I publish my comments.
darn it. I meant "possible".
Post a Comment