Suspension of Habeas Corpus Was Unconstitutional
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 purported to suspend the right of habeas corpus, among other things.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
One pretty substantial victory over the forces of ignorance.
Link to the full 134-page decision (PDF) in Boumediene et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
UPDATE: Of course, four justices seem to believe that we can ditch the Constitution just because some people are afraid of terrorists. Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’.
UPDATE: From Senator Obama’s statement on today’s Supreme Court decision:
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.
UPDATE: Last night on Keith Olbermann’s show, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley wasn’t nearly as happy about the restoration of habeas corpus as I thought he would be. He pointed out that the Executive Branch, both houses of Congress and the Judicial Branch all failed to uphold the Constitution, which was only saved by the narrowest of margins, a single vote on the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: Shayana Kadidal on the background and possible consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Related One Utah posts:
‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals’ (February 21, 2008)
Hatch Votes Against Habeas Corpus — Again (June 7, 2007)
Liberty and Justice for All (December 18, 2006)
Jim Matheson’s Dilemma. Plays Us for Fools. (October 18, 2006)
I’ll See You at Gitmo (October 18, 2006)
June 12th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Poor Bush is still sitting there holding his pet goat book and wondering if he’s in trouble. But mommy, Alberto broke the constitution, honest!
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, John Conyers… PLEASE do your job!
June 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
We used to just shoot enemy combatants rather than hold them in prisons. It looks like that may be where we need to go again rather than risk a liberal judge letting the terrorists free to rein terror on us again. What is it going to take for you people to take terrorism seriously? Will it take a nuclear weapon destroying a US city before you wake up or will that even be enough?
June 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I’m pretty impressed. Only four of the “judges” decided to throw away their credibility as a judge and vote to ignore Habeas Corpus. That was sort of like an astronomer saying the earth is the center of the universe or that Bush won the election.
Looks like Bob and jd are a little confused about what this means. I thought the constitution was at the center of their universe.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Larry,
I’m not confused, I’m reading the actual court ruling. Haven’t worked all the way through all 170 something pages.
For American citizens, Habeas definitely should apply. Bring them to a court, convict them and then execute them for treason. That’s pretty simple for those caught fighting against American and Allied forces.
America is in an almost impossible position. How the terrorists are fighting means that Geneva Conventions do not apply (maybe they shouldn’t apply); so should the fighters be treated as military or civilians?
Let me review the full opinion, I’ll talk about it again later. I”m also reviewing the impeachment charges. Quick opinion- it will never go anywhere. Congress doesn’t want its dirty laundry aired on how it mis-managed things. Also, it’s like Dennis is throwing, er, spaghetti, ya, let’s go with that; against the wall to see what will stick.
Everything from Valerie Plame to Armstrong William, to even Global Warming.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ken, one of the slimiest parts of the ‘We don’t do Torture’ that your hero professes, is that: While many of the detainees would rather die, it is simply NOT thier choice. They can not starve themselves, for they will be force fed like chickens. After water-boarding, they are attended to by the medical staff, brought back around, thier testimony recorded and of course, if it is wanting (as it so often is) they get some more. Will we ever be made aware of the record number of drowning-deaths and subsequent rescessitations for any one victim? Your sense that terrorism comes only from afar is in need of a blinderectomy.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Cav, don’t take this the wrong way, but it is “their”, if you suffer from dyslexia, accept my apologies. Been thier for quite some time, been down so long…, I forgot to crawl…
June 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan.
John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Ford.
Justice David Souter was appointed by President George W. H. Bush.
All were part of the 5-4 majority in this case.
I rather like some of the justices that conservative Republicans appointed, namely the aforementioned. The Bush administration in contrast has pursued a radical constitutional view that the President is an elected king for four years and that there is a special legal class called, in so many words, “bad guys,” who have no rights, and that accordingly some prisoners may be tortured or shot at will. I fear a McCain administration might pursue similar theories.
Of course, if it really is a matter of our cities being vaporized if this ruling stands, then the President’s theory of inherent war powers should be invoked to overrule the court as a matter of consistency with his legal theories and the views of his supporters. And then we really would have impeachment on the table.
As to vaporizing cities, my personal opinion is that the Bush Presidency overall has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. Somehow we got through the Cold War with habeas corpus and our cities more or less intact. We should be able to do so in the current threat environment if we keep cool heads.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
OK Bob. I was kind of wondering where you were on the impeachment thing because you hadn’t said anything. I’m glad to see you’re studying up on Kucnich’s document. Pretty damning stuff, huh? Thanks for not stooping to calling him a flying saucer conspiracy theorist though, obviously, his claims have a solid basis in truth. There are a lot of them, and he says he has lots more. It’s amazing how much crime you can commit in just 8 years if you have no regard for American laws or people.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Amazing. The most conservative Court in modern times, more conservative than the one that selected the coke-head, still manages to eek out one for the Constitution.
At least we know what real American traitors look like. Four of them where black robes and masquerade as SCOTUS judges.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Glenn, no prob. I stand corrected, and so will thei. I’ve been consistent, you have to admit.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Anyone for scrabble?
June 13th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Bob S. wrote:
Under the Military Commissions Act, anyone anywhere can be designated an enemy combatant using whatever criteria the government decides to make up. If you are a U.S. citizen, once you are locked up how do you prove it? You’re without access to an attorney or anyone else who can help you.
In another Supreme Court ruling yesterday, two Americans who are being held prisoner in Iraq by the U.S. government were denied access to U.S. courts on a technicality.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Having been involved with the habeas petitions on the front line since the Rasul decision in 2004 (and subsequently ignored by Bush), I can say this about the current decision: good going guys and girl!
And as to the four dissenters (and to you, too, Ken B.), I say: watch your backs; just maybe Americans are not all as stupid and susceptible as you think or hope!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
It’s pretty sad when you can guess which justices voted against and for a case, just by knowing the vote count. The dissenters have no business being in any court except to be charged with crimes.
One message to Scalia:
You lost! So there! Get over it!
America sighs with relief!
June 16th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I’m not sure yet where I stand on this issue. On one hand, I completely disagree with Antonin Scalia when he praised Jack Bauer–a fictional character:
On the other hand, Scalia makes an excellent point that the case Johnson v Eisentrager established in the 1950’s that habeas did not apply to German captives:
Was the 1950 court correct? If so, how is this different? Therefore, is the real issue here habeas, or is it really the broad definition of who is an enemy combatant as defined in the Military Commissions Act of 2006? If it’s a matter of sovereignty, does the US military move all remaining 270 Gitmo detainees to someplace in Iraq or Afghanistan to get around that sticky wicket?
P.S. Bob S. has a point. We should read through the intricacies and history of the case before we have our minds completely made up about the ignoramosity of judges.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
[...] Suspension of Habeas Corpus Was Unconstitutional (June 12, 2008) Bush Administration 9/11 Show Trials Tainted By Torture (May 13, 2008) ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals’ (February 21, 2008) Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]