The Death of Habeas Corpus... Maybe

[cbelt3]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09...n-blocked/

" A federal appeals court tentatively halted a ruling that blocked legislation authorizing the government to indefinitely detain without trial individuals, including U.S. citizens, who are deemed to “substantially support” groups “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The decision (.pdf) by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came late Monday in response to an an emergency petition (.pdf) by the Obama administration earlier that day. The administration called a lower court’s ruling striking down the law a threat to national security. A New York federal judge last week found the rule to be unconstitutional as it was so vague it could apply to U.S. citizens and journalists exercising their constitutional rights, and the government immediately appealed.
"
- - -

The Administration has promised, in writing, to 'not indefinitely detain American Citizens'.

- - -
The administration does, however, recognize that we continue to be in an active state of war with terrorist organizations. Habeas Corpus has been suspended in our history during times of war. The application of this suspension is quite specific, and only to people identified as working with specific organizations.

But, of course, there are abuse opportunities galore.

What does the assembled team think about this case, and the law ?

[Lemon Drop]

I feel the same way about it now as the last time it came up - a disappointing infringement of basic civil liberties that should be blocked by the courts.

[rankandfile]

Lemon Drop wrote:
I feel the same way about it now as the last time it came up - a disappointing infringement of basic civil liberties that should be blocked by the courts.

:agree: Absolutely.

At its core, habeas corpus is the most basic right we have. Without it, all others are endangered.

[Spock]

rankandfile wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
I feel the same way about it now as the last time it came up - a disappointing infringement of basic civil liberties that should be blocked by the courts.

:agree: Absolutely.

At its core, habeas corpus is the most basic right we have. Without it, all others are endangered.
+1, well said.

[JoeH]

A number of persons have posted their disappointment in that aspect of this administration, and on more than a few occasions over the last 3+ years. It was bad law when it was passed under Bush's administration, it got no better since then even with the amendments made since first passed.

[Mac-A-Matic]

We cannot have a Totalitarian Government with Habeas Corpus.

[cbelt3]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
We cannot have a Totalitarian Government with Habeas Corpus.

We most definitely *could*. Totalitarian Governments are usually quite good at having 'laws' to handle their actions in controlling the citizenry. Trumped Up charges are a common practice.

[michaelb]

I am troubled by the legal, ethical and political issues of how we have detained possible terror suspects from the begining. But I also have never seen a plausible proposal as to how to do this without raising some concerns. It would be nice though for the US government to have a coherent plan that is on solid legal footing.

I have done several Habeas petitions though, so I do have practical experience with that process. Habeas does not get you a "trial on the merits" and the Gov't can deny a trial on the merits without violationg Habeas. Habeas gets you some justification/explanation for why you are being held or detained. Presumably this law provides a process for that justification, short of a trial, so Habeas may not be avail or may not offer much more than that. If there is a lawful basis for that detention, then Habeas would not interfere.

[gabester]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
We cannot have a Totalitarian Government with Habeas Corpus.

It certainly is a lot easier to have a totalitarian government WITHOUT Habeas Corpus, but I'm sure they'd figure out a way... for example by changing the definition of "person" so that only individuals owning incorporated entities are protected by it.
g=

[Speedy]

I don't see any reason terror suspects should be treated any differently than other criminal suspects.