'Open season on people of color'
Why should anyone offer an institutional critique of racist St. Louis County and prison-state America when Jay Nixon (Dope-Missouri) might run for Senate in 2016?
Because it's right.
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
"Today, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Executive Director Vincent Warren released the following statement in response to the news that the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case failed to indict Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who killed him.
"It’s difficult to see how anyone in the community can have faith in the system at this point: the failure to indict sends the clear message that it's open season on people of color. All resistance must be viewed through that lens, and the focus must remain on the injustice of a white police officer getting away – yet again – with killing a young unarmed Black man. We stand with the community in anger and in mourning. We stand with the people in the streets of Ferguson, just as the world stood with protesters in Tahrir Square, in Gaza, in Hong Kong. The world must learn: Black lives matter."
Showing posts with label Center for Constitutional Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for Constitutional Rights. Show all posts
Sep 25, 2009
If An Agent Knocks
As MSNBC was reporting on police efforts to disrupt the G-20 protesters in Pittsburgh, one element missing in its coverage is the explanation for why the police were disrupting Americans exercising their First Amendment rights in the first place.
It was as though the police action were the norm, and the action of the protesters demonstrating their points of view is some presumptive act against our country.
Ridiculous.
Just as the veterans defending the Los Angeles National Veterans Home were treated as criminals, so too are other Americans in today's unquestioning acquiescence to state authority.
Annette Warren Dickerson and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are offering protection for citizens to exercise their civil rights in their pamphlet, "If an Agent Knocks".
CCR grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s and is dedicated to protecting the rights of all Americans.
Published below is Dickerson's e-mail message to supporters and all citizens:
It was as though the police action were the norm, and the action of the protesters demonstrating their points of view is some presumptive act against our country.
Ridiculous.
Just as the veterans defending the Los Angeles National Veterans Home were treated as criminals, so too are other Americans in today's unquestioning acquiescence to state authority.
Annette Warren Dickerson and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are offering protection for citizens to exercise their civil rights in their pamphlet, "If an Agent Knocks".
CCR grew out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s and is dedicated to protecting the rights of all Americans.
Published below is Dickerson's e-mail message to supporters and all citizens:
At this very moment, the fundamental right to dissent is being restricted, threatened and perilously criminalized. CCR is on the front lines defending the right to dissent and has also re-issued an important resource for all those likely to be targeted for their actions.
Right now, thousands of activists who have gathered in Pittsburgh to protest at the G20 summit have been met with what we have come to expect: overreaction by authorities and illegal preventive tactics by law enforcement officials at all levels. A secret communications hub with 'electronic eyes' has been established by the Secret Service, working with over 40 other agencies to infiltrate, spy on, and disrupt all forms of opposition. Raids and arrests are mounting, and the aggressive and well-planned system of cracking down on dissenting voices and reducing media coverage is strongly in effect.
CCR has responded to the increasing threat to dissent in a number of ways. For months now a CCR board member and cooperating attorney, Jules Lobel, has worked with on the ground organizations to secure permits and challenge restrictions to protests. Last week, in collaboration with the ACLU, he successfully represented several organizations in court and secured the right to demonstrate in a city park during the G20 gathering. And in a filing on Monday, we charged the local police with illegal searches, vehicle seizures, raids and detentions of Seeds of Peace members aimed at preventing them from providing food to protestors. CCR's legal director, Bill Quigley, is in Pittsburgh advocating on behalf of the protestors, and CCR will continue its support. On the topic of dissent, Bill Quigley wrote an article on the protests at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, PA; you can read the article here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is re-issuing our pamphlet, 'If an Agent Knocks,' to provide advice to activists likely to be targeted by FBI agents or other federal investigators, in Pittsburgh and beyond. This booklet is a resource to protect activists from government investigation. We also want to support the power you show when you exercise this fundamental right of dissent.Since its original release in 1989, CCR's 'If an Agent Knocks' has been widely circulated in progressive activist communities across the country. This guide includes both the timeless advice included in the original version and extensive updates to reflect the current state of the law and law enforcement tools. It also includes a comprehensive discussion of today's technology, including cell phones, e-mail and Web browsing.
'If An Agent Knocks' is an invaluable tool for activists in a time when efforts to repress expressions of opposition are intensified. We want to get this publication into as many hands as possible.
To obtain a free copy, please email iaak@ccrjustice.org . You can also download it in pdf form. Tell your friends and fellow activists about 'If An Agent Knocks,' and urge them to place an order too. We are giving away a special edition of 'If An Agent Knocks' posters to the first 500 people who order the booklet.
Apr 28, 2009
Obama Is Failing on Civil Liberties Reforms
Another major civil rights organization hits the Obama administration today.The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) gives Barack Obama a harsh assessment on the administration's 100 day in office.
Concludes CCR:
The first 100 days of the Obama administration presented a historic opportunity to restore the Constitution after the Bush administration’s systematic attempts to dismantle it, right by right, while ignoring international human rights standards. Yet, despite several strong steps, the Obama presidency has failed to live up to its promises in many areas of critical importance, including human rights, torture, rendition, secrecy and surveillance
CCR joins the recently released Brennan Center for Justice's report card that reaches similar conclusions.
The CCR report reflects a growing sense of betrayal felt among many in the civil rights community who are wondering what's the hold-up on implementing fundamental democratic reforms. Coming from CCR, which grew out of the 1960s civil rights movement, the Obama administration's posture of having to be dragged kicking and screaming into reforming the Bush/Cheney constitutional abuses is mystifying.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
I half expect to go to my In Box and read that Obama is calling for Real Voter ID, for Christ's sakes. C'mon!
Jan 21, 2009
Close Git-mo
Closing Guantánamo Bay is a simple matter of will.
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
In fact, as the Center for Constitutional Rights has laid out in a clear and concise report, closing Guantánamo is easy. There are three simple and necessary steps to close Guantánamo:
1. send those who can go home home,
2. secure safe haven for those who cannot, and
3. charge those who can be charged then try them in ordinary federal criminal court.
Jul 25, 2008
CCR on Civil Liberties
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
On Saturday, July 19th 2008, at the NetRoots Nation conference in Austin, Texas, Jen Nessel (CCR) moderated a panel of speakers including Vince Warren (CCR), Jameel Jaffer (ACLU), Jeremy Scahill (DemocracyNow), and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate.com) who spoke and answered questions about Constitutional Rights.
Considering the fact that the Bush administration has worked systematically over the last seven years to violate U.S. and international law, and that legal advocates and journalists have uncovered the facts and identified those responsible, this panel explored what accountability should now look like. Additionally they discussed what the courts and the next administration must do in its first 100 days to make things right.
On Saturday, July 19th 2008, at the NetRoots Nation conference in Austin, Texas, Jen Nessel (CCR) moderated a panel of speakers including Vince Warren (CCR), Jameel Jaffer (ACLU), Jeremy Scahill (DemocracyNow), and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate.com) who spoke and answered questions about Constitutional Rights.
Considering the fact that the Bush administration has worked systematically over the last seven years to violate U.S. and international law, and that legal advocates and journalists have uncovered the facts and identified those responsible, this panel explored what accountability should now look like. Additionally they discussed what the courts and the next administration must do in its first 100 days to make things right.
Jul 11, 2008
This Supreme Court Might Let FISA Stand
The ACLU, joined by numerous co-plaintiffs, has filed a challenge to the FISA law.
Thh ACLU brief asserts that the FISA is unconstitutional, allowing "the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents. The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect." [Amnesty International USA et al v. John McConnell (U.S. Director of National Intelligence) et al, complaint for a Declaratatory and Injunctive Relief]
The Bush-Cheney acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the inherent power of the presidency has modern U.S. precedent—the Nixon administration.
But 1972 saw a unanimous Supreme Court shoot down Nixon’s attempt to legalize his monarchical claims of his presidency through warrantless wiretapping in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
Justice Lewis Powell, writing for a unanimous Court, denounced the Nixon administration’s warrantless wiretapping program not just on Fourth Amendment grounds, but as a betrayal of the sovereign rights of citizens in a democracy to criticize their own government.
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. ... The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
- Justice Lewis Powell (UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972))
One wonders if today's Supreme Court will vote to protect Fourth Amendment freedoms as did its predecessor. We live in different, worse, times than we did during Nixon.
- Part of the above copy has been previously published. -
Thh ACLU brief asserts that the FISA is unconstitutional, allowing "the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents. The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect." [Amnesty International USA et al v. John McConnell (U.S. Director of National Intelligence) et al, complaint for a Declaratatory and Injunctive Relief]
The Bush-Cheney acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the inherent power of the presidency has modern U.S. precedent—the Nixon administration.
But 1972 saw a unanimous Supreme Court shoot down Nixon’s attempt to legalize his monarchical claims of his presidency through warrantless wiretapping in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
Justice Lewis Powell, writing for a unanimous Court, denounced the Nixon administration’s warrantless wiretapping program not just on Fourth Amendment grounds, but as a betrayal of the sovereign rights of citizens in a democracy to criticize their own government.
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. ... The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
- Justice Lewis Powell (UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972))
One wonders if today's Supreme Court will vote to protect Fourth Amendment freedoms as did its predecessor. We live in different, worse, times than we did during Nixon.
- Part of the above copy has been previously published. -
Jun 19, 2008
Voting for President Matters
Update: See An Animosity to Civil Liberties, John Yoo, Totalitarian
via mal contends - The bare five-to-four majority in the Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States, preserving the writ of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body") demonstrates that civil liberties in our country today is a partisan deliberation.
Civil liberties, among the rationales behind the founding of the United States of America, do not (with notable exceptions) enjoy a high regard in today's Republican Party.
The conclusion is clear that voting Democratic (however problematic the Party proves in many spheres of concern to progressives) is imperative, if preserving civil liberty is an objective.
Just consider if Robert Bork and not Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of Boumediene opinion, were on the Court today.
Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 after the U.S. Senate rejected Bork and his statist-reactionary jurisprudence that is hostile to the very concept of individual liberty.
Kennedy is no William O. Douglas, but we can be thankful that Robert Bork is not on the Court today supplying the fifth vote to entrench reactionaries' politcal power and destroy the liberty and due process rights of American citizens.
The stakes are high.
via mal contends - The bare five-to-four majority in the Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States, preserving the writ of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body") demonstrates that civil liberties in our country today is a partisan deliberation.
Civil liberties, among the rationales behind the founding of the United States of America, do not (with notable exceptions) enjoy a high regard in today's Republican Party.
The conclusion is clear that voting Democratic (however problematic the Party proves in many spheres of concern to progressives) is imperative, if preserving civil liberty is an objective.
Just consider if Robert Bork and not Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of Boumediene opinion, were on the Court today.
Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 after the U.S. Senate rejected Bork and his statist-reactionary jurisprudence that is hostile to the very concept of individual liberty.
Kennedy is no William O. Douglas, but we can be thankful that Robert Bork is not on the Court today supplying the fifth vote to entrench reactionaries' politcal power and destroy the liberty and due process rights of American citizens.
The stakes are high.
Jun 13, 2008
Scalia: The New Joe McCarthy
via mal contends - The hysterical dissent by the always colorful Justice Scalia in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States offers a glimpse into the fearful mind of the rightwinger in which can be viewed watery reflections of Senator Joe McCarthy.
[Pictured above-left are Center for Constitutional Rights staff and Co-Counsel, dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.]
Scalia, scolding five of his breathen, offers his dissent from the majority’s decision, including his terrified opinion that, "It (the majority opinion) will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Wow. I never knew that habeas corpus, due process, the rule of law, and the separation of powers were such dangerous dynamics to have in a country.
Damn liberals. And that goes double for you, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton.
We ought to bring back loyalty oaths and raise Joe McCarthy from the dead to expose these Islamo-fascists sympathizers who are going to get us killed.
But today is a day for celebration for liberty as we smile at the fears of Scalia and his ilk who never could stomach the notion that "the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, (understanding) the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom," or that quaint idea, in Hamilton's formulation, that the "... practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." (Justice Kennedy)
As a commentator on this piece flushes out, those engaging in fearmongering combined with an implicit hostility to civil liberties tend to have as a goal the diminishment of said liberties.
Below-right is our famed Senator McCarthy pictured from the early 1950s, protecting America from the Communists and sympathizers among us (from McCarthyism, The Fight for America, 1952). You know, McCarthy even kind of looks like Scalia.
Landmark Supreme Court Win for Liberty Points Way for Dem Victory in November
Update: CCR Produces Analysis of Landmark Supreme Court Decision
via mal contends
The Supreme Court decision (in Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States) is a historic affirmation of the principle of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body"), and a rejection of the acclaimed right of the tyrant, George W. Bush in this instance, to imprison another with no sound recourse for the accused; in these cases, the detained prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantánamo.
Habeas corpus refers simply to the right of the accused to go before an impartial judge and challenge the rationale behind the denial of his/her liberty.
"One of the oldest and most basic legal protections, habeas corpus affords the incarcerated the right to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against him or her. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has been sending habeas counsel to represent the prisoners at the base since winning the first Guantánamo case, Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, and applauds today’s decision," reads CCR's press release.
That's a modest statement.
It's fitting that CCR, an organization that grew out the civil rights movement— specifically Arthur Kinoy and the Kunstler brothers (nigga-loving Jews as they were known back then, and let's never forget, in the 1960s by the southern states' white power structures) and 1,000s more heroes of liberty whose names history will not record—researched and argued this landmark victory for liberty.
It is also sobering, as a NYT editorial notes today, that "... habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States—a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties—but a timely reminder of how fragile they are."
Sobering, yes, but also inspiring of optimism for the coming November rejection of the Bush-Cheney-McCain crowd.
Barack Obama who is for the moment underperforming with white women will undoubtedly improve his standing as the campaign crystallizes how dangerous an instrument the Supreme Court has become to the cause of liberty, specifically women's liberty.
Lose any one of the five-member majority, and replace him/her with a Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas clone, as John McCain has promised to do were he elected, and the right of a woman to choose will vanish. MAKE NO MISTAKE.
The decades-old victory by the feminist movement (to which Hillary Clinton and many of her supporters can proudly lay claim) for women to have the simple power over their own bodies means nothing to the hateful ideology that is prepared to eradicate the centuries-old habeas corpus rights.
Thus, look for Hillary's supporters to move decisively to Obama's camp as the repercussions of a John McCain win become clear and unity beats back the forces of hate and tyranny. Obama should be thinking about Hillary as a Supreme Court appointment for when he wins this fall.
via mal contends
The Supreme Court decision (in Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States) is a historic affirmation of the principle of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body"), and a rejection of the acclaimed right of the tyrant, George W. Bush in this instance, to imprison another with no sound recourse for the accused; in these cases, the detained prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantánamo.
Habeas corpus refers simply to the right of the accused to go before an impartial judge and challenge the rationale behind the denial of his/her liberty.
"One of the oldest and most basic legal protections, habeas corpus affords the incarcerated the right to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against him or her. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has been sending habeas counsel to represent the prisoners at the base since winning the first Guantánamo case, Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, and applauds today’s decision," reads CCR's press release.
That's a modest statement.
It's fitting that CCR, an organization that grew out the civil rights movement— specifically Arthur Kinoy and the Kunstler brothers (nigga-loving Jews as they were known back then, and let's never forget, in the 1960s by the southern states' white power structures) and 1,000s more heroes of liberty whose names history will not record—researched and argued this landmark victory for liberty.
It is also sobering, as a NYT editorial notes today, that "... habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States—a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties—but a timely reminder of how fragile they are."
Sobering, yes, but also inspiring of optimism for the coming November rejection of the Bush-Cheney-McCain crowd.
Barack Obama who is for the moment underperforming with white women will undoubtedly improve his standing as the campaign crystallizes how dangerous an instrument the Supreme Court has become to the cause of liberty, specifically women's liberty.
Lose any one of the five-member majority, and replace him/her with a Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas clone, as John McCain has promised to do were he elected, and the right of a woman to choose will vanish. MAKE NO MISTAKE.
The decades-old victory by the feminist movement (to which Hillary Clinton and many of her supporters can proudly lay claim) for women to have the simple power over their own bodies means nothing to the hateful ideology that is prepared to eradicate the centuries-old habeas corpus rights.
Thus, look for Hillary's supporters to move decisively to Obama's camp as the repercussions of a John McCain win become clear and unity beats back the forces of hate and tyranny. Obama should be thinking about Hillary as a Supreme Court appointment for when he wins this fall.
Jun 12, 2008
Habeas Corpus Wins, Bush Loses; Obama Applauds SC Decision
Update IV: Justice 5, Brutality 4
Update III: Obama applauds the decision, McCain condemns it.
Update II: Justice Kennedy declared for the majority: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
Update: See also Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act
The rule of law and due process right to habeas corpus review win, and Bush and his sons of anti-liberty crowd are not too happy.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, the civil liberties group that grew out of the civil rights movement, nails a well-earned victory.
That idiot who serves as the American president said, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented. And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."
The next thing you know, we'll stop torturing the accused and treat them as human beings.
Barack Obama Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision:
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.
Update III: Obama applauds the decision, McCain condemns it.
Update II: Justice Kennedy declared for the majority: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
Update: See also Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act
The rule of law and due process right to habeas corpus review win, and Bush and his sons of anti-liberty crowd are not too happy.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, the civil liberties group that grew out of the civil rights movement, nails a well-earned victory.
That idiot who serves as the American president said, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented. And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."
The next thing you know, we'll stop torturing the accused and treat them as human beings.
Barack Obama Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision:
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.
Dec 6, 2007
CCR on Habeas Corpus for Guantanamo Bay Detainees
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
Guantánamo Attorneys to Justices: Restore the Constitution
Combined Cases Will Determine Legal Fate of Men and Boys Held at Offshore Detention Center
NELL MCGARITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a landmark human rights case with significant implications for the separation of powers, the Supreme Court today heard a challenge brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel to the legality of Guantánamo Bay detentions.
This case will decide whether federal courts have any say in checking the power of the Executive Branch to hold men at Guantanamo indefinitely and outside of the law.
“All have been confined at Guantanamo for almost 6 years yet not one has had meaningful notice of the factual grounds of their detention,” said former Solicitor General Seth Waxman in his oral arguments.
Thirty-six of the 37 detainees involved in this suit have been in detention for more than five years without ever having faced formal charges or having a fair hearing before a civilian court.
Attorneys for the detainees—supported by dozens of former federal officials and legal experts—are asking the court to restore the right to habeas corpus—the basic right to challenge the legality of their detention—to the men and boys held at the offshore prison.
“We have been back and forth in the courts as the government has tried one maneuver after another to avoid the Supreme Court’s past rulings – that the detainees are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. courts,” said Vincent Warren, executive director of CCR, which has organized legal representation for Guantánamo detainees since the prison opened in January 2002. “We hope the Supreme Court will end this travesty once and for all and provide full, fair and prompt hearings, which are the very foundation of a free society.”
The Court ruled in favor of the detainees in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006). Following the Hamdan decision, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which has kept Guantanamo prisoners in legal limbo.
“The precedent set in past Guantanamo Supreme Court cases—that every person detained has the right to a fair hearing, including those jailed at the detention center for almost six years—is a necessity for any country calling itself a nation under law,” CCR President Michael Ratner said.
The Court received more than two dozen amicus curiae (“friend of the Court”) briefs on behalf of the men and boys held at Guantánamo. Former military officials and diplomats, former Congressmen of both parties and a bipartisan group of non-government organizations showed their support of granting habeas rights.
More information:
CCR lawyers were the first civilian attorneys to visit clients at Guantánamo, in 2004, and have been petitioning on behalf of the men and boys there since the detention center opened six years ago. After winning the Rasul case in 2004, CCR coordinated the largest ever coalition of pro bono lawyers to defend the prisoners there, ensuring that nearly all have been represented.
CCR’s legal team comprises leading experts on human rights and related legal issues. They have spoken at various prestigious law schools, been interviewed on numerous national and local radio programs and have recently penned an op-ed that ran in the Washington Post on being the first attorneys ever to visit a former CIA “ghost” detainee.
CCR’s “Beyond Guantánamo” campaign is working to bring national awareness to the issues surrounding this landmark case. Notably, television ads are running this week on CNN and MSNBC, as well as a print ad in the Wall Street Journal. CCR’s ad was rejected, though, by the Fox News Channel. The “Beyond Guantánamo” campaign has also helped tens of thousands of people to send the President an early holiday present—a copy of the Constitution.
Important note:
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren, CCR President Michael Ratner and leading CCR staff attorneys are available for both live and taped interviews on Dec. 5 and 6.
Vincent Warren became executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights 2006. He spent seven years as national senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, where he led national constitutional and impact litigation to advance civil rights and civil liberties and coordinated the legal efforts to respond to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and served as co-counsel in Rasul v. Bush. Ratner is a world-renowned legal advocate who has taught at both the Columbia and Yale law schools. For more than three decades, he has represented individuals who have suffered injustice the world over—from East Timor and the South Bronx to Haiti and Guatemala. Last year, the National Law Journal named Ratner one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the United States and is the winner of this year’s Nation/Puffin Award. Ratner is the author of several books, including Guantánamo: What the World Should Know and the forthcoming The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gitanjali Gutierrez has been working on legal challenges to Guantanamo since 2003 and was a member of the legal team that argued the first Guantanamo case, Rasul v. Bush, before the Supreme Court in 2004. Following CCR's victory in Rasul, Gita was the first civilian attorney to meet with clients at the base and currently travels regularly to the detention center for client meetings. Last month, she became the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee.”
Shayana Kadidal is senior managing attorney of the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at CCR. In addition to supervising the Guantanamo litigation, he also works on CCR’s major case on the illegal NSA domestic spying program, CCR v. Bush, as well as the Center’s Patriot Act case, and has testified before Congress on the material witness statute.
Wells Dixon works on the Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative at CCR. His clients include Uighur prisoners cleared for release in 2003, a U. N.-mandate refugee from Somalia and former Baltimore-area resident Majid Khan, who was imprisoned in secret CIA “black sites” for more than three years before he was transferred to Guantanamo in Sept. 2006.
AL ODAH/BOUMEDIENE LEGAL ARGUMENT AND IMPLICATIONS
What the Supreme Court will consider in Al Odah v. United States:
1. Did the D.C. Circuit err in relying again on Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), to dismiss these petitions and to hold that Petitioners have no common law right to habeas protected by the Suspension Clause and no constitutional rights whatsoever, despite this Court’s ruling in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), that these Petitioners are in a fundamentally different position from those in Eisentrager, that their access to the writ is consistent with the historical reach of the writ at common law, and that they are confined within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?
2. Given that the Court in Rasul concluded that the writ at common law would have extended to persons detained at Guantanamo, did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that Petitioners’ right to the writ was not protected by the Suspension Clause because they supposedly would not have been entitled to the writ at common law?
3. Are Petitioners, who have been detained without charge or trial for more than five years in the exclusive custody of the United States at Guantanamo, a territory under the plenary and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
4. Should section 7(b) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does not explicitly mention habeas corpus, be construed to eliminate the courts’ jurisdiction over Petitioners’ pending habeas cases, thereby creating serious constitutional issues?
What the Supreme Court will consider in Boumediene v. Bush:
1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has imprisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlawful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits.
Analysis on the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Argument
Petitioners in Al Odah argue that the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush in 2004 precludes the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Guantanamo detainees have no common law right to habeas corpus protected by the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, provides that habeas corpus, such as it existed at common law, may be suspended by Congress only in cases of “rebellion or invasion.”
Furthermore, Petitioners challenge the D.C. Circuit’s reliance on Johnson v. Eisentrager to dismiss the detainee habeas corpus petitions, given that in Rasul, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Petitioners are differently situated to those in Eisentrager, and are confined within an area in the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Petitioners argue further that they are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus at common law, such as it existed historically, outside the definitions of the federal habeas statute, and thus are protected from any unlawful suspension of habeas by the Suspension Clause.
In addition, Petitioners argue that they are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Petitioners have been detained without a judicial hearing for well over five years, within an area under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States. Petitioners further argue that any substitute procedures – and the review of those substitute procedures by the D.C. Circuit Court – that have been created are so limited and narrowly defined, as well as fraught with error – are no substitute for habeas corpus and due process.
Thus, Petitioners argue, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 cannot have validly and Constitutionally stripped Petitioners of their right to the writ of habeas corpus at common law.
In response, the Executive argues that “as aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, [the detainees] enjoy no rights under the Suspension Clause. Second, even if they could invoke the Suspension Clause, it would not entitle them to relief because they seek an expansion of the writ well beyond its historic scope. And third, the [Detainee Treatment Act] in any event provides an adequate alternative to any habeas rights [these detainees] may have.”
In reality, Petitioners have been held for nearly six years at a U.S. Naval Base, in a territory under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States, without any judicial process or hearing, despite the clear mandate of the Rasul court. They are not citizens of enemy nations, but citizens of our closest allies who maintain that they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, they have been denied any meaningful process for a period that now stretches to six years – and threatens to continue indefinitely.
Two military officers who sat on Combatant Status Review Tribunals have stated in affidavits that the panels relied on shoddy evidence in order to reach preordained results -- no substitute for habeas corpus at law.
************
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
- 30 -
Guantánamo Attorneys to Justices: Restore the Constitution
Combined Cases Will Determine Legal Fate of Men and Boys Held at Offshore Detention Center
NELL MCGARITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a landmark human rights case with significant implications for the separation of powers, the Supreme Court today heard a challenge brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel to the legality of Guantánamo Bay detentions.
This case will decide whether federal courts have any say in checking the power of the Executive Branch to hold men at Guantanamo indefinitely and outside of the law.
“All have been confined at Guantanamo for almost 6 years yet not one has had meaningful notice of the factual grounds of their detention,” said former Solicitor General Seth Waxman in his oral arguments.
Thirty-six of the 37 detainees involved in this suit have been in detention for more than five years without ever having faced formal charges or having a fair hearing before a civilian court.
Attorneys for the detainees—supported by dozens of former federal officials and legal experts—are asking the court to restore the right to habeas corpus—the basic right to challenge the legality of their detention—to the men and boys held at the offshore prison.
“We have been back and forth in the courts as the government has tried one maneuver after another to avoid the Supreme Court’s past rulings – that the detainees are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. courts,” said Vincent Warren, executive director of CCR, which has organized legal representation for Guantánamo detainees since the prison opened in January 2002. “We hope the Supreme Court will end this travesty once and for all and provide full, fair and prompt hearings, which are the very foundation of a free society.”
The Court ruled in favor of the detainees in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006). Following the Hamdan decision, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which has kept Guantanamo prisoners in legal limbo.
“The precedent set in past Guantanamo Supreme Court cases—that every person detained has the right to a fair hearing, including those jailed at the detention center for almost six years—is a necessity for any country calling itself a nation under law,” CCR President Michael Ratner said.
The Court received more than two dozen amicus curiae (“friend of the Court”) briefs on behalf of the men and boys held at Guantánamo. Former military officials and diplomats, former Congressmen of both parties and a bipartisan group of non-government organizations showed their support of granting habeas rights.
More information:
CCR lawyers were the first civilian attorneys to visit clients at Guantánamo, in 2004, and have been petitioning on behalf of the men and boys there since the detention center opened six years ago. After winning the Rasul case in 2004, CCR coordinated the largest ever coalition of pro bono lawyers to defend the prisoners there, ensuring that nearly all have been represented.
CCR’s legal team comprises leading experts on human rights and related legal issues. They have spoken at various prestigious law schools, been interviewed on numerous national and local radio programs and have recently penned an op-ed that ran in the Washington Post on being the first attorneys ever to visit a former CIA “ghost” detainee.
CCR’s “Beyond Guantánamo” campaign is working to bring national awareness to the issues surrounding this landmark case. Notably, television ads are running this week on CNN and MSNBC, as well as a print ad in the Wall Street Journal. CCR’s ad was rejected, though, by the Fox News Channel. The “Beyond Guantánamo” campaign has also helped tens of thousands of people to send the President an early holiday present—a copy of the Constitution.
Important note:
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren, CCR President Michael Ratner and leading CCR staff attorneys are available for both live and taped interviews on Dec. 5 and 6.
Vincent Warren became executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights 2006. He spent seven years as national senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, where he led national constitutional and impact litigation to advance civil rights and civil liberties and coordinated the legal efforts to respond to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and served as co-counsel in Rasul v. Bush. Ratner is a world-renowned legal advocate who has taught at both the Columbia and Yale law schools. For more than three decades, he has represented individuals who have suffered injustice the world over—from East Timor and the South Bronx to Haiti and Guatemala. Last year, the National Law Journal named Ratner one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the United States and is the winner of this year’s Nation/Puffin Award. Ratner is the author of several books, including Guantánamo: What the World Should Know and the forthcoming The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gitanjali Gutierrez has been working on legal challenges to Guantanamo since 2003 and was a member of the legal team that argued the first Guantanamo case, Rasul v. Bush, before the Supreme Court in 2004. Following CCR's victory in Rasul, Gita was the first civilian attorney to meet with clients at the base and currently travels regularly to the detention center for client meetings. Last month, she became the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee.”
Shayana Kadidal is senior managing attorney of the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at CCR. In addition to supervising the Guantanamo litigation, he also works on CCR’s major case on the illegal NSA domestic spying program, CCR v. Bush, as well as the Center’s Patriot Act case, and has testified before Congress on the material witness statute.
Wells Dixon works on the Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative at CCR. His clients include Uighur prisoners cleared for release in 2003, a U. N.-mandate refugee from Somalia and former Baltimore-area resident Majid Khan, who was imprisoned in secret CIA “black sites” for more than three years before he was transferred to Guantanamo in Sept. 2006.
AL ODAH/BOUMEDIENE LEGAL ARGUMENT AND IMPLICATIONS
What the Supreme Court will consider in Al Odah v. United States:
1. Did the D.C. Circuit err in relying again on Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), to dismiss these petitions and to hold that Petitioners have no common law right to habeas protected by the Suspension Clause and no constitutional rights whatsoever, despite this Court’s ruling in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), that these Petitioners are in a fundamentally different position from those in Eisentrager, that their access to the writ is consistent with the historical reach of the writ at common law, and that they are confined within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?
2. Given that the Court in Rasul concluded that the writ at common law would have extended to persons detained at Guantanamo, did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that Petitioners’ right to the writ was not protected by the Suspension Clause because they supposedly would not have been entitled to the writ at common law?
3. Are Petitioners, who have been detained without charge or trial for more than five years in the exclusive custody of the United States at Guantanamo, a territory under the plenary and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
4. Should section 7(b) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does not explicitly mention habeas corpus, be construed to eliminate the courts’ jurisdiction over Petitioners’ pending habeas cases, thereby creating serious constitutional issues?
What the Supreme Court will consider in Boumediene v. Bush:
1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has imprisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlawful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits.
Analysis on the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Argument
Petitioners in Al Odah argue that the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush in 2004 precludes the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Guantanamo detainees have no common law right to habeas corpus protected by the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, provides that habeas corpus, such as it existed at common law, may be suspended by Congress only in cases of “rebellion or invasion.”
Furthermore, Petitioners challenge the D.C. Circuit’s reliance on Johnson v. Eisentrager to dismiss the detainee habeas corpus petitions, given that in Rasul, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Petitioners are differently situated to those in Eisentrager, and are confined within an area in the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Petitioners argue further that they are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus at common law, such as it existed historically, outside the definitions of the federal habeas statute, and thus are protected from any unlawful suspension of habeas by the Suspension Clause.
In addition, Petitioners argue that they are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Petitioners have been detained without a judicial hearing for well over five years, within an area under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States. Petitioners further argue that any substitute procedures – and the review of those substitute procedures by the D.C. Circuit Court – that have been created are so limited and narrowly defined, as well as fraught with error – are no substitute for habeas corpus and due process.
Thus, Petitioners argue, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 cannot have validly and Constitutionally stripped Petitioners of their right to the writ of habeas corpus at common law.
In response, the Executive argues that “as aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, [the detainees] enjoy no rights under the Suspension Clause. Second, even if they could invoke the Suspension Clause, it would not entitle them to relief because they seek an expansion of the writ well beyond its historic scope. And third, the [Detainee Treatment Act] in any event provides an adequate alternative to any habeas rights [these detainees] may have.”
In reality, Petitioners have been held for nearly six years at a U.S. Naval Base, in a territory under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States, without any judicial process or hearing, despite the clear mandate of the Rasul court. They are not citizens of enemy nations, but citizens of our closest allies who maintain that they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, they have been denied any meaningful process for a period that now stretches to six years – and threatens to continue indefinitely.
Two military officers who sat on Combatant Status Review Tribunals have stated in affidavits that the panels relied on shoddy evidence in order to reach preordained results -- no substitute for habeas corpus at law.
************
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
- 30 -
Dec 5, 2007
Supreme Court Membership and Restoration of Habeas Corpus for Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Update II: Read Jon Wiener's Arguing About Gitmo in The Nation.
Update: The transcript of today’s consolidated argument in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196) is available at U.S. Oral Arguments Transcripts.
-End of delayed C-Span 3 stream of oral arguments -
Facing hostile questioning from Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito, attorney Seth Waxman, seeking habeas corpus protections for Guantanamo Bay detainees ran into what appears as an authoritarian block representing the ideology of the George W. Bush administration.
Waxman is seeking for the accused access to the U.S. federal courts, via habeas corpus and other means, to challenge the detention and conditions of confinement of the accused.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the Bush administration, faced skeptical and aggressive questioning from Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer ("Habeas (writs) are supposed to be speedy"), and Ginsberg.
Clement seeks the Court to rule that the Bush administration may deny habeas corpus based on reasons of geographical jurisdiction, lack of POW status of detainees, and common and case law deference to the Executive branch in times of war.
Clement has also argued that the Congress and Executive branch have already spoken on the matter.
Justice Kennedy asked questions about the applicability of past decisions and the authority of a given U.S. Court of Appeals Court to declare the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional, and also raised the possibility of a lower federal court reviewing the issue.
Kennedy also asked Clement what appeared to be a skeptical question on the administrative procedures implementing the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in light of the detainees having now had no liberty for six years, and Clement's comment that: " ... the courts -- the lower courts should be instructed to with due cognizance for the fact these individuals have been detained six years and this is the process that has been provided in order to decide whether or not that continuing custody is lawful, they should expedite this to the greatest extent possible."
Asked Kennedy, "How can we fit your position when we have no jurisdiction here?", as the Congress and Executive branches have already spoken on the matter with the enactment of the MCA which bars federal courts from hearing detainee appeals, in what appears to be one very weak aspect of the Bush administration's case.
The capacity of the Congress and Executive branch to simply declare that the U.S. Court system may not rule on a legislative act flies in the face of centuries of American jurisprudence.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his habits during oral arguments and what some observers see as a lack of legal curiosity, asked not a single question in this possible landmark case.
In rebuttal, Waxman said the traditional writ of habeas corpus does apply to situations of executive detention like what Bush has done at Guantanamo Bay, and that military tribunals are "inadequate".
Based on the ideologies in past decisions, here's a wild guess on how the Justices will rule:
John Paul Stevens (1975) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Antonin Scalia (1986) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Anthony M. Kennedy (1988) – ?
David H. Souter (1990) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Clarence Thomas (1991) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Stephen G. Breyer (1994) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts (2005) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (2006) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Al Odah v. U.S. Amicus Briefs page
###
Update: The transcript of today’s consolidated argument in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196) is available at U.S. Oral Arguments Transcripts.
-End of delayed C-Span 3 stream of oral arguments -
Facing hostile questioning from Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito, attorney Seth Waxman, seeking habeas corpus protections for Guantanamo Bay detainees ran into what appears as an authoritarian block representing the ideology of the George W. Bush administration.
Waxman is seeking for the accused access to the U.S. federal courts, via habeas corpus and other means, to challenge the detention and conditions of confinement of the accused.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the Bush administration, faced skeptical and aggressive questioning from Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer ("Habeas (writs) are supposed to be speedy"), and Ginsberg.
Clement seeks the Court to rule that the Bush administration may deny habeas corpus based on reasons of geographical jurisdiction, lack of POW status of detainees, and common and case law deference to the Executive branch in times of war.
Clement has also argued that the Congress and Executive branch have already spoken on the matter.
Justice Kennedy asked questions about the applicability of past decisions and the authority of a given U.S. Court of Appeals Court to declare the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional, and also raised the possibility of a lower federal court reviewing the issue.
Kennedy also asked Clement what appeared to be a skeptical question on the administrative procedures implementing the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in light of the detainees having now had no liberty for six years, and Clement's comment that: " ... the courts -- the lower courts should be instructed to with due cognizance for the fact these individuals have been detained six years and this is the process that has been provided in order to decide whether or not that continuing custody is lawful, they should expedite this to the greatest extent possible."
Asked Kennedy, "How can we fit your position when we have no jurisdiction here?", as the Congress and Executive branches have already spoken on the matter with the enactment of the MCA which bars federal courts from hearing detainee appeals, in what appears to be one very weak aspect of the Bush administration's case.
The capacity of the Congress and Executive branch to simply declare that the U.S. Court system may not rule on a legislative act flies in the face of centuries of American jurisprudence.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his habits during oral arguments and what some observers see as a lack of legal curiosity, asked not a single question in this possible landmark case.
In rebuttal, Waxman said the traditional writ of habeas corpus does apply to situations of executive detention like what Bush has done at Guantanamo Bay, and that military tribunals are "inadequate".
Based on the ideologies in past decisions, here's a wild guess on how the Justices will rule:
John Paul Stevens (1975) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Antonin Scalia (1986) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Anthony M. Kennedy (1988) – ?
David H. Souter (1990) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Clarence Thomas (1991) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Stephen G. Breyer (1994) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts (2005) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (2006) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.
Al Odah v. U.S. Amicus Briefs page
###
Evidence Of Innocence Rejected at Guantanamo
Update: Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States arguments (are scheduled) be heard at: C-Span 3 11.15 (eastern), 10:15 (central), and ScotusBlog will be (after-arguments)-blogging at 11:15 eastern time this a.m.
The Washington Post has a front-page story by Carol D. Leonnig detailing the plight on an innocent man, student Murat Kurnaz, held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2002.
In fact, Kurnaz was and is known by U.S. authorities to be innocent.
The "... intelligence community's consensus view that Kurnaz is innocent is detailed in newly released military and court documents that track his fate."
Excerpt from the piece:
The (U.S. military tribunal) process is "fundamentally corrupted," said Baher Azmy, a professor at Seton Hall Law School who represents Kurnaz. "All of this just reveals that they had the wrong person and they knew it."
He added: "His entire file reveals he has no connection with terrorism. None. Confronted with this uncomfortable fact, the military panel makes up evidence" to justify its claim that only real terrorists are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on whether the military now believes that it erred in imprisoning Kurnaz, or to discuss the release of new records. He stressed that a substantial amount of information about Kurnaz remains classified. ...
###
The Washington Post has a front-page story by Carol D. Leonnig detailing the plight on an innocent man, student Murat Kurnaz, held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2002.
In fact, Kurnaz was and is known by U.S. authorities to be innocent.
The "... intelligence community's consensus view that Kurnaz is innocent is detailed in newly released military and court documents that track his fate."
Excerpt from the piece:
The (U.S. military tribunal) process is "fundamentally corrupted," said Baher Azmy, a professor at Seton Hall Law School who represents Kurnaz. "All of this just reveals that they had the wrong person and they knew it."
He added: "His entire file reveals he has no connection with terrorism. None. Confronted with this uncomfortable fact, the military panel makes up evidence" to justify its claim that only real terrorists are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on whether the military now believes that it erred in imprisoning Kurnaz, or to discuss the release of new records. He stressed that a substantial amount of information about Kurnaz remains classified. ...
###
Center for Constitutional Rights Argues Guantánamo Due Process Case at SC Today
Update II: Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States arguments can be heard at: C-Span 3 11.15 (eastern), 10:15 (central).
Update: ScotusBlog will be (after-arguments)-blogging at 11:15 eastern time this a.m.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues the Bush administration's nightmare case today, Al Odah v. United States, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A companion case, Boumediene v. Bush, is also being argued today.
In Al Odah v. United States, the CCR is attempting to restore the right of accused inmates to challenge their detention and conditions of confinement, a long-cherished legal principle known as habeas corpus.
Numerous people held at Guantánamo Bay are believed to be innocent, and several have already been freed and sent back to their native countries.
But though the Bush administration retains a harsh and hostile view of civil liberties, even those inmates later found to be guilty deserve due process and access to an impartial court, according to liberty-supporting communities the world-over.
A decision against the Bush administration could put an end to indefinite detention and mandate an opportunity to be heard before an impartial court, a result that the Bush administration attempts to block.
As CCR webpage reads:
###
Update: ScotusBlog will be (after-arguments)-blogging at 11:15 eastern time this a.m.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues the Bush administration's nightmare case today, Al Odah v. United States, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A companion case, Boumediene v. Bush, is also being argued today.
In Al Odah v. United States, the CCR is attempting to restore the right of accused inmates to challenge their detention and conditions of confinement, a long-cherished legal principle known as habeas corpus.
Numerous people held at Guantánamo Bay are believed to be innocent, and several have already been freed and sent back to their native countries.
But though the Bush administration retains a harsh and hostile view of civil liberties, even those inmates later found to be guilty deserve due process and access to an impartial court, according to liberty-supporting communities the world-over.
A decision against the Bush administration could put an end to indefinite detention and mandate an opportunity to be heard before an impartial court, a result that the Bush administration attempts to block.
As CCR webpage reads:
On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush, that the nearly-600 men imprisoned by the U.S. government in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba had a right of access to the federal courts, via habeas corpus and otherwise, to challenge their detention and conditions of confinement. Subsequent to thisAl Odah v. U.S. Amicus Briefs page
decision, the habeas petitions were remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Immediately after the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul, CCR and cooperating counsel filed 11 new habeas petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of over 70 detainees.
These cases eventually became the consolidated cases of Al Odah v. United States and Boumediene v. Bush, the leading cases determining the significance of the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul, the rights of non-citizens to challenge the legality of their detention in an offshore U.S. military base, and the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
###
Sep 19, 2007
Court Dismisses CCR Case Against Caterpillar for Deaths and Injuries in Occupied Territories
Via Center for Constitutional Rights:
Filed on Behalf of Family of Activist Rachel Corrie and Four Palestinian Families Whose Homes Were Demolished By Caterpillar Bulldozers
NEW YORK- September 18 -[Yesterday], the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of CCR’s case charging Caterpillar, Inc. with aiding and abetting war crimes and other serious human rights violations on the grounds that the company provided bulldozers to Israel knowing they would be used unlawfully to demolish homes and endanger civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Today’s decision from a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case because Caterpillar’s bulldozers were ultimately paid for with money from the United States. Because of the U.S. government’s decision to grant military assistance to Israel, any decision regarding whether Caterpillar aided and abetted war crimes would impermissibly intrude upon the executive branch’s foreign policy decisions. In today’s decision, the Court did not rule on the question of whether Caterpillar aided and abetted Israeli war crimes.
“We are extremely disappointed with the Court’s refusal to decide whether Caterpillar violated the law, essentially because it did not want to question the U.S. decision to pay for the bulldozers," said CCR Senior Attorney Maria LaHood. “The Court has a constitutional duty to uphold the law, and the law prohibits aiding and abetting war crimes - regardless of who’s footing the bill.”
The case, Corrie, et al. v. Caterpillar Inc. was brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie and four Palestinian families whose family members were killed or injured when Caterpillar bulldozers demolished their homes. Corrie, a 23-year-old American peace activist and student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, was killed March 16, 2003, in the Gaza Strip by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer while protecting a home from illegal demolition.
“For our family, the court proceedings were trying to bring some accountability for Caterpillar’s role in human rights violations,” said Craig Corrie, father of Rachel Corrie. “Of course, Caterpillar always has the option to act responsibly and could do that by ceasing to provide Israel these bulldozers no matter how they are financed. I call on Caterpillar management to decide that that’s not how Caterpillar wants to make money.”
Added Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel Corrie, “On behalf of Rachel and Palestinians killed in home demolitions by Caterpillar bulldozers, including three children under 9 years old, a disabled man, and an elderly man, we are extremely disappointed with this decision, and I will continue to seek justice and accountability for all of them.”
Caterpillar provided the D9 bulldozers to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), knowing they would be used to unlawfully destroy civilian homes. Since the year 2000, the IDF has used Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy more than 4,000 Palestinian homes, leaving thousands of individuals homeless in the process. The Caterpillar D9 bulldozer is over 13 feet tall and 26 feet wide, weighs more than 60 tons with its armored plating, and can raze houses in a matter of minutes.
Much of the world community, including the United Nations and international human rights organizations, has consistently condemned these demolitions as a clear violation of international humanitarian law. For years, Caterpillar has had notice that the IDF was using its D9 bulldozers for human rights violations; despite this, the company has continued to provide them to the Israeli government.
“It is important to note that the Court did not reach the substantive questions about Caterpillar’s role in aiding and abetting violations of international law,” said Gwynne Skinner, Visiting Clinical Professor at Seattle University Law School, who, along with CCR, also represents the Corrie family. “However, with regard to the Court’s view that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the case, we are reviewing the decision carefully and will decide how to proceed.”
The case, which was filed in March 2005, was dismissed by Judge Franklin D. Burgess in the Western District of Washington in November 2005. In July 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether the case should proceed.
The plaintiffs are represented by the International Human Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, the Seattle-based Public Interest Law Group, PLLC, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
About CCR
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights demonstrators in the South, CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change."
###
Filed on Behalf of Family of Activist Rachel Corrie and Four Palestinian Families Whose Homes Were Demolished By Caterpillar Bulldozers
NEW YORK- September 18 -[Yesterday], the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of CCR’s case charging Caterpillar, Inc. with aiding and abetting war crimes and other serious human rights violations on the grounds that the company provided bulldozers to Israel knowing they would be used unlawfully to demolish homes and endanger civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Today’s decision from a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case because Caterpillar’s bulldozers were ultimately paid for with money from the United States. Because of the U.S. government’s decision to grant military assistance to Israel, any decision regarding whether Caterpillar aided and abetted war crimes would impermissibly intrude upon the executive branch’s foreign policy decisions. In today’s decision, the Court did not rule on the question of whether Caterpillar aided and abetted Israeli war crimes.
“We are extremely disappointed with the Court’s refusal to decide whether Caterpillar violated the law, essentially because it did not want to question the U.S. decision to pay for the bulldozers," said CCR Senior Attorney Maria LaHood. “The Court has a constitutional duty to uphold the law, and the law prohibits aiding and abetting war crimes - regardless of who’s footing the bill.”
The case, Corrie, et al. v. Caterpillar Inc. was brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie and four Palestinian families whose family members were killed or injured when Caterpillar bulldozers demolished their homes. Corrie, a 23-year-old American peace activist and student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, was killed March 16, 2003, in the Gaza Strip by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer while protecting a home from illegal demolition.
“For our family, the court proceedings were trying to bring some accountability for Caterpillar’s role in human rights violations,” said Craig Corrie, father of Rachel Corrie. “Of course, Caterpillar always has the option to act responsibly and could do that by ceasing to provide Israel these bulldozers no matter how they are financed. I call on Caterpillar management to decide that that’s not how Caterpillar wants to make money.”
Added Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel Corrie, “On behalf of Rachel and Palestinians killed in home demolitions by Caterpillar bulldozers, including three children under 9 years old, a disabled man, and an elderly man, we are extremely disappointed with this decision, and I will continue to seek justice and accountability for all of them.”
Caterpillar provided the D9 bulldozers to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), knowing they would be used to unlawfully destroy civilian homes. Since the year 2000, the IDF has used Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy more than 4,000 Palestinian homes, leaving thousands of individuals homeless in the process. The Caterpillar D9 bulldozer is over 13 feet tall and 26 feet wide, weighs more than 60 tons with its armored plating, and can raze houses in a matter of minutes.
Much of the world community, including the United Nations and international human rights organizations, has consistently condemned these demolitions as a clear violation of international humanitarian law. For years, Caterpillar has had notice that the IDF was using its D9 bulldozers for human rights violations; despite this, the company has continued to provide them to the Israeli government.
“It is important to note that the Court did not reach the substantive questions about Caterpillar’s role in aiding and abetting violations of international law,” said Gwynne Skinner, Visiting Clinical Professor at Seattle University Law School, who, along with CCR, also represents the Corrie family. “However, with regard to the Court’s view that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the case, we are reviewing the decision carefully and will decide how to proceed.”
The case, which was filed in March 2005, was dismissed by Judge Franklin D. Burgess in the Western District of Washington in November 2005. In July 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether the case should proceed.
The plaintiffs are represented by the International Human Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, the Seattle-based Public Interest Law Group, PLLC, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
About CCR
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights demonstrators in the South, CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change."
###
Sep 8, 2007
U.S. Needs Erwin Griswold, and Not Paul Clement
 |
| Erwin Griswold, U.S. Solicitor General (1967–73) Dean of Harvard Law School (1946-67) |
Madison, Wisconsin— Recalling his successful arguing of the landmark Fourth Amendment case in 1972 against the Nixon administration as Nixon literally sought the legal destruction of American Constitutional government through the Supreme Court’s imprimatur, the great civil rights attorney, Arthur Kinoy (1920-2003), writes:
The government’s team had arrived. I immediately looked for their most prominent member, the one wearing the traditional long morning coat that government lawyers invariably wear when arguing before the High Court. … I expected to see Erwin Griswold, the Solicitor General and a former dean of Harvard Law School (pictured above-right). … Instead, I saw an unfamiliar man, tall, dark, and scowling, wearing the morning coat. I turned to (William) Gossett and whispered, ‘It’s not Griswold!’ ‘No,’ answered Gossett, ‘it’s Mardian (Robert Mardian, a Nixon hatchet man at the DoJ Internal Security Division, dedicated to the destruction of anti-war and civil rights citizen groups.) … ‘All (Mardian) needs is the jackboots,’ someone later remarked to Kinoy. … Then something even stranger happened. Griswold walked into the courtroom and sat down in the seat reserved for the Solicitor General, as though to make it clear to the Court that he had not withdrawn because of illness or scheduling conflicts, but for some other reason. He sat there quietly throughout the argument, as if he were constantly saying to the Court through his physical presence, ‘I am not arguing this case. Just remember that.’
- Rights on Trial, the Odyssey of a People’s Lawyer [The case, UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), was unanimously decided, 8 - 0, on June 19, 1972 in favor the White Panthers’ citizens group (among other parties) and dealt a devastating blow to Nixon’s attempt to declare the nullification of the Constitutional guarantees of individual liberty at the sole discretion of the President.]
Under the administration of George W. Bush, there exists few modern-day Erwin Griswolds—though Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, are worthy candidates.
We do see the same legal and political assault on the Constitution that the president swore an oath to defend, though this administration shies away from the light of day and democracy more intensely than Nixon ever did.
But today, we have as Solicitor General, Paul Clement, a rightwing Cedarburg, Wisconsin native and former Federalist Society member, who has argued numerous cases in favor of a monarchical conception of the executive branch empowered with the secret authority of warrantless surveillance, legal torture and the alleged right to declare any American citizen an “enemy combatant” endowed with no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution or International law, and with no right of habeas corpus.
Paul Clement, respected scholar and soon to be acting Attorney General, sports a record of protecting the Constitutional liberties of citizens that is nothing short of scandalous for an American.
[- From the New York Times, March 29, 2006 on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -
Justice Souter interrupted. "Isn't there a pretty good argument that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is just about the most stupendously significant act that the Congress of the United States can take," he asked, "and therefore we ought to be at least a little slow to accept your argument that it can be done from pure inadvertence?"
When Mr. Clement began to answer, Justice Souter persisted: "You are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently. Is that really your position?"
The solicitor general replied, "I think at least if you're talking about the extension of the writ to enemy combatants held outside the territory of the United States —— "
"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."]
Those objecting to Bush’s program of accumulating power in the Executive at the expense of the rights of American citizens are not long for service in the administration into which Clements fits snugly.
But we should not be surprised. Under this administration individual liberty has not had as determined an enemy since the darkest days of the disgraced Nixon administration.
What can we do:
- Demand that the permanent appointment to Attorney General be a person of dedication to the rule of law and liberty, and that the Senate not confirm anyone of Clement's anti-liberty views
- Contact the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and other civil rights organizations and contribute as you can
- Vote against today’s Republican Party that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the libertarian Goldwater era
Today’s Republican party is an authoritarian-minded group of hypocrites, campaigning on bigotry and division, who like Bush seek power for their own ends, with no respect for public service or the liberty of Americans for whom and only with their consent does government derive its just power.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)