Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reviving Habeas Corpus

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Supreme Court Checks and Balances in Boumediene By MARJORIE COHN www.marjoriecohn.com After the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion, upholding
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Supreme Court Checks and Balances in Boumediene
      By MARJORIE COHN
      www.marjoriecohn.com


      After the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion,
      upholding habeas corpus rights for the Guantánamo detainees, I was
      invited to appear on The O'Reilly Factor with guest host Laura
      Ingraham. Although she is a lawyer and former law clerk for Justice
      Clarence Thomas, Ingraham has no use for our judicial branch of
      government, noting that the justices are "unelected." Indeed, she
      advocated that Bush break the law and disregard the Court's decision
      in Boumediene v. Bush:

      "Marjorie, I was trying to think to myself, look, if I were
      President Bush, and I had heard that this case had come down, and
      I'm out of office in a few months. My ratings, my popularity ratings
      are pretty low, I would have said at this point, that's very
      interesting that the court decided this, but I'm not going to
      respect the decision of the court because my job is to keep this
      country safe."

      What did the Court decide that so incensed Ingraham (who has just
      been rewarded for her "fair and balanced" views with her own show on
      Fox News)? Will this decision really imperil our safety? And will
      Boumediene become an issue in the presidential election?

      The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that the Guantánamo detainees
      have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, and that the scheme
      for reviewing 'enemy combatant' designations under the Combatant
      Status Review Tribunals is an inadequate substitute for habeas
      corpus, a result I predicted in a December 3, 2007
      article<http://marjoriecohn.com/2007/12/guantnamo-detainees-fate-at-
      stake-in.html>.

      Guantánamo detainees have constitutional right to habeas corpus

      Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution is known as the
      Suspension Clause. It reads, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
      Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
      Invasion the public Safety may require it." In section 7(a) of the
      Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress purported to strip habeas
      rights from the Guantánamo detainees by amending the habeas corpus
      statute (28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(e)). In Boumediene, the Court held that
      section of the Act to be unconstitutional, declaring that the
      detainees still retained the constitutional right to habeas corpus.

      Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reiterated the Court's
      finding in Rasul v. Bush that although Cuba retains technical
      sovereignty over Guantánamo, the United States exercises complete
      jurisdiction and control over its naval base and thus the
      Constitution protects the detainees there. Kennedy rejected "the
      necessary implication" of Bush's position that the political
      branches could "govern without legal restraint" by locating a U.S.
      military base in a country that retained formal sovereignty over the
      area. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts flippantly characterized
      Guantánamo as a "jurisdictionally quirky outpost."

      Kennedy worried that the political branches could "have the power to
      switch the Constitution on or off at will" which "would lead to a
      regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is.'" "Even
      when the United States acts outside its borders," Kennedy
      wrote, "its powers are not 'absolute and unlimited' but are
      subject 'to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.'"

      Thus, Kennedy observed, "the writ of habeas corpus is itself an
      indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers."
      Indeed, habeas corpus was one of the few individual rights the
      Founding Fathers wrote it into the original Constitution, years
      before they enacted the Bill of Rights.

      "The test for determining the scope of [the habeas corpus]
      provision," Kennedy wrote, "must not be subject to manipulation by
      those whose power it is designed to restrain." It is such
      manipulation that Laura Ingraham would perpetuate. It was a
      Republican-controlled Congress, working hand-in-glove with Bush,
      that tried to strip habeas corpus rights from the Guantánamo
      detainees in the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court has
      determined that effort to be unconstitutional. Fulfilling its
      constitutional duty to check and balance the other two branches, the
      Court has carried out its mandate to interpret the Constitution and
      say "what the law is."

      No adequate substitute for habeas corpus

      Finding that the Guantánamo detainees retained the constitutional
      right to habeas corpus, the Court turned to the issue of whether
      there was an adequate substitute for habeas review. Bush established
      Combatant Status Review Tribunals ("CSRTs") to determine whether a
      detainee is an "enemy combatant." These kangaroo courts provide no
      right to counsel, only a "personal representative," who owes no duty
      of confidentiality to his client and often doesn't even advocate on
      behalf of the detainee; one even argued the government's case. The
      detainee doesn't have the right to see much of the evidence against
      him and is very limited in the evidence he can present.

      The CSRTs have been criticized by military participants in the
      process. Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of U.S. intelligence,
      said they often relied on "generic" evidence and were set up to
      rubber-stamp the "enemy combatant" designation. When he sat as a
      judge in one of the tribunals, Abraham and the other two judges - a
      colonel and a major in the Air Force - "found the information
      presented to lack substance" and noted that statements presented as
      factual "lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively
      credible evidence." After they determined there was "no factual
      basis" to conclude the detainee was an enemy combatant, the
      government pressured them to change their conclusion but they
      refused. Abraham was never assigned to another CSRT panel. It is
      widely believed that Abraham's affidavit about the shortcomings of
      the CSRT's in Boumediene's companion case caused the Supreme Court
      to reverse its denial of certiorari and agree to review Boumediene.
      This was the first time in 60 years the Court had so reversed itself.

      While the Court declined to decide whether the CSRTs satisfied due
      process standards, it concluded that "even when all the parties
      involved in this process act with diligence and in good faith, there
      is considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact."
      The Court then had to determine whether the procedure for judicial
      review of the CSRTs' "enemy combatant" designations constituted an
      adequate substitute for habeas corpus review.

      "For the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an
      effective and proper remedy in this context," Kennedy wrote, "the
      court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to
      correct errors that occurred during the CSRT proceedings. This
      includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the
      Government's evidence against the detainee. It also must have the
      authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that
      was not introduced during the earlier proceeding."

      But in the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA"), Congress limited district
      court review of the CSRT determinations to whether the CSRT complied
      with its own procedures. The district court had no authority to hear
      newly discovered evidence or make a finding that the detainee was
      improperly designated as an enemy combatant.

      The Supreme Court noted that "when the judicial power to issue
      habeas corpus properly is invoked the judicial officer must have
      adequate authority to make a determination in light of the relevant
      law and facts and to formulate and issue appropriate orders for
      relief, including, if necessary, an order directing the prisoner's
      release." Since the DTA's scheme for reviewing determinations of the
      CSRTs did not afford this authority, the Court held it was not an
      adequate substitute for habeas corpus and thus section 7 of the
      Military Commissions Act acted as "an unconstitutional suspension of
      the writ."

      Boumediene will not imperil the United States

      In his dissent, Justice Scalia sounded the alarm that the Boumediene
      decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
      Likewise, the Wall St. Journal editorialized, "We can say with
      confident horror that more Americans are likely to die as a result."
      Their predictions, however, are not based in fact.

      Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian detainees from Bosnia
      were accused of threatening to blow up an embassy in Bosnia. The
      Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded there was no
      evidence to continue to detain them and ordered them released. The
      Bosnian officials turned them over to the United States and they
      were transported to Guantánamo, where they have languished since
      2002.

      Many of the men and boys at Guantánamo were sold as bounty to the
      U.S. military by the Northern Alliance or warlords for $5,000 a
      head. Indeed, Maj. Gen. Jay Hood, the former commander at
      Guantánamo, admitted to the Wall St. Journal, "Sometimes we just
      didn't get the right folks," but innocent men remain detained there
      because "[n]obody wants to be the one to sign the release
      papers . . . there's no muscle in the system."

      The Boumediene decision will not directly impact the criminal cases
      against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the few others who will be tried
      in the military commissions. It is the 211 men who have filed habeas
      corpus petitions challenging their "enemy combatant" designations
      who will benefit from this ruling. No one will be automatically
      released. They will simply be afforded a fair hearing. Most
      Americans would not object to a requirement that our government
      fairly prove someone guilty before we imprison him indefinitely.

      Even Justice Jackson, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, advocated
      due process for the Nazi leaders. "The ultimate principle," he
      said, "is that you must put no man on trial under the forms of
      judicial proceedings if you are not willing to see him freed if not
      proven guilty." Jackson understood the importance of the presumption
      of innocence in our system of law.

      Kennedy quoted Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 84
      that "arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite
      and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Justice Souter cut to
      the chase in his separate opinion, citing "the length of the
      disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today
      having been locked up for six years." None of them has been charged
      with a crime and none has been brought before a fair and impartial
      judge.

      "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in
      force, in extraordinary times." Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security
      can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the
      framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a
      right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part
      of that law."

      "Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles,"
      according to Kennedy. "Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary
      and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by
      adherence to the separation of powers ... Within the Constitution's
      separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are
      as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear
      challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."

      In responding to Laura Ingraham's false dichotomy between keeping us
      safe and protecting habeas corpus, I cited Benjamin Franklin's
      admonition: "They who would give up an essential liberty for
      temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

      Attacking judges under guise of national security

      The Boumediene decision split along political lines with the four so-
      called liberal justices - Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer - in
      the majority, and the four conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas,
      Roberts and Alito - in the dissent. Kennedy, the swing vote, broke
      the tie. Curt Levy from the Committee for Justice, which seeks to
      pack the courts with right-wing judges, blogged that Boumediene
      has "teed up the Supreme Court issue nicely for the G.O.P."

      Indeed, John McCain has already seized upon it as a campaign issue.
      The day the opinion came out, McCain said, "It obviously concerns
      me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we
      need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of
      Guantánamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that." By the
      next day, McCain had changed his tune. "The Supreme Court yesterday
      rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in
      the history of this country," he declared. McCain, who hopes to
      overcome the unpopularity of his positions on the war and the
      economy, will make national security the centerpiece of his campaign.

      Barack Obama, who links our national security with how other nations
      view us, characterized the Boumediene decision as "an important step
      toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the
      rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism
      and respecting habeas corpus."

      It is very likely that the next president will make at least one
      nomination, and probably two, to the Supreme Court. Boumediene is
      the poster child for how delicately the Court is now balanced, and
      the disastrous consequences to the doctrine of separation-of-powers
      that await us if a President McCain makes good on his promise to
      appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito.


      Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a
      professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is author of Cowboy
      Republic

      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0977825337/counterpunchmaga>.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.