The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum
=> Here's da info + docs ...
| Here's da info + docs ... |
|
Posted by
Andreas
(Guest)
- Friday, December 19 2003, 3:13:29 (EST) from 80.142.237.199 - p508EEDC7.dip.t-dialin.net  Network -  Windows 2000 -   Internet ExplorerWebsite: Website title: |
Here's da info + docs ... From the JURIST's Paper Chase. (12/18/2003): The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that terror suspects held without charge at Guantanamo Bay should have access to counsel and to US federal district courts. Read the Court's Opinion [PDF] http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/429E2096892C3D8388256E00005FEB65/$file/0355785final.pdf?openelement . UPDATE: From the Opinion: [T]he issue before us is...whether the courts of the United States are entirely closed to detainees held at Guantanamo indefinitely?detainees who would appear to have no effective right to seek relief in the courts of any other nation or before any international judicial body. We recognize that the process due ?enemy combatant? habeas petitioners may vary with the ircumstances and are fully aware of the unprecedented challenges that affect the United States? national security interests today, and we share the desire of all Americans to ensure that the Executive enjoys the necessary power and flexibility to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, even in times of national emergency?indeed, particularly in such times?it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike. Here, we simply cannot accept the government?s position that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement. We hold that no lawful policy or precedent supports such a counter-intuitive and undemocratic procedure.... In our view, the government?s position is inconsistent with fundamental tenets of American jurisprudence and raises most serious concerns under international law. AP now has more. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031218_1701.html (12/18/2003 12:01:15 PM) AP is reporting that the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that President Bush does not have the power to detain Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber", is a US citizen who was detained on US soil under suspicion of conspiring to detonate a radiological weapon in an American city. A three-judge panel of the Court ruled 2-1 that the President lacked necessary Congressional approval for the designation. Read the majority [PDF] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTIyMzVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2235_opn.pdf#xml=http://10.213.23.111:81/isysquery/irldfb4/1/hilite and dissenting [PDF] Opinions. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTIyMzVfZGlzLnBkZg==/03-2235_dis.pdf#xml=http://10.213.23.111:81/isysquery/irldfb4/2/hilite Details to follow. UPDATE: From the majority Opinion: Where, as here, the President?s power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) (2000) (the ?Non-Detention Act?) prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress?s Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (?Joint Resolution?), passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization, and no exception to section 4001(a) otherwise exists. In light of this express prohibition, the government must undertake to show that Padilla?s detention can nonetheless be grounded in the President?s inherent constitutional powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (Jackson, J., concurring). We conclude that it has not made this showing. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address the detention of an American citizen seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, such as the court confronted in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003) (?Hamdi III?). Nor do we express any opinion as to the hypothetical situation of a congressionally authorized detention of an American citizen. Accordingly, we remand to the District Court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing Secretary Rumsfeld to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days, at which point the government can act within its legislatively conferred authority to take further action. For example, Padilla can be transferred to the appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him. If appropriate, he can also be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003). Under any scenario, Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extended to other citizens. CBS News has more here. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/03/terror/main586638.shtml (12/18/2003 8:24:46 AM) --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
|
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, application/x-shockwa... Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-language: de Cache-control: no-cache Connection: Keep-Alive Content-length: 5746 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf/rkvsf_core.php?.3QUx. User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) |
Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9