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 Бумедьєн 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
Стаття 1, розділ 9, пункт 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 Бумедьєн, 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 Расул проти Буша що хоча
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
Таким чином, зауважив Кеннеді, «наказ habeas corpus сам по собі є незамінним механізмом контролю за розподілом влади». Дійсно, habeas corpus було одним із небагатьох індивідуальних прав, про які батьки-засновники записали в оригінальній Конституції за роки до того, як вони ухвалили Білль про права.
"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
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.
«Щоб наказ habeas corpus або його замінник функціонував як ефективний і належний засіб правового захисту в цьому контексті, — писав Кеннеді, — суд, який проводить провадження habeas, повинен мати засоби для виправлення помилок, які сталися під час розгляду CSRT. Це включає певні повноваження для оцінки достатності доказів Уряду проти затриманого. Він також повинен мати повноваження визнавати та розглядати відповідні виправдувальні докази, які не були представлені під час попереднього провадження».
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.
Верховний суд зазначив, що «якщо судові повноваження видавати habeas corpus належним чином застосовуються, судовий службовець повинен мати достатні повноваження для прийняття рішення у світлі відповідного закону та фактів, а також формулювати та видавати відповідні накази про захист, у тому числі, якщо необхідно , наказ про звільнення в’язня». Оскільки схема DTA для перегляду рішень CSRTs не надала таких повноважень, суд постановив, що це не є адекватною заміною habeas corpus, і тому розділ 7 Закону про військові комісії діяв як «неконституційне призупинення судового наказу».
Бумедьєн will not imperil the
In his dissent, Justice Scalia sounded the alarm that the Бумедьєн decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Likewise, the Стіл Ст. журнал 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
Many of the men and boys at Guantánamo were sold as bounty to the
Команда Бумедьєн 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
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. "
«Безпека також існує у вірності основним принципам свободи», за словами Кеннеді. «Головними з них є свобода від свавільного та незаконного обмеження та особиста свобода, яка забезпечується дотриманням принципу поділу влади… У рамках конституційної структури поділу влади мало видів здійснення судової влади є такими ж законними чи необхідними, як відповідальність розглядати оскарження повноважень виконавчої влади ув’язнити особу».
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
Команда Бумедьєн рішення 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 Бумедьєн 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
Barack Obama, who links our national security with how other nations view us, characterized the Бумедьєн 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. Бумедьєн 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 the author of
ZNetwork фінансується виключно завдяки щедрості своїх читачів.
Задонатити