David Kirkpatrick

June 12, 2008

Gitmo detainees have habeas corpus rights

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 1:57 pm

The Supreme Court has knocked down another of the Bush 43 regime’s effort to rewrite the standards of US law. The ruling affords Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus relief.

From the Volokh Conspiracy link:

In this post, I want to excerpt the key passages from the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. Boumediene is a remarkably long opinion — 70 pages, probably Justice Kennedy’s longest majority opinion ever. Here are the key sections:

   First, in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, the Court concludes that the detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas relief at Gitmo. Here’s the holding stated in the majority opinion:

Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. We do not address whether the President has authority to detain these petitioners nor do we hold that the writ must issue. These and other questions regarding the legality of the detention are to be resolved in the first instance by the District Court.

1 Comment »

  1. This is a great day for American constitutionalism. It is shocking, however, that four-ninths of the United States Supreme Court find compelling justification to imprison innocent men (i.e., those who might be exonerated at trial) for life without a constitutionally recognized judicial hearing.

    My take on this case is posted here.

    Comment by mbjesq — June 13, 2008 @ 4:23 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: