home

Guantanamo Detainees Brief Available

The brief of the Guantanamo detainees in the Supreme Court case Rasul v. Bush is available online here. (pdf) The question presented is "Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?" [link via How Appealing]

Update: From UPI:

The 30-page brief pulls no punches in its criticism of the legal issues surrounding the more than 600 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, ostensibly outside the reach of civilian courts. "If there is no right to civilian review, the government is free to conduct sham trials and condemn to death those who do nothing more than pray to Allah," the brief states.

If the Bush administration's treatment of the prisoners is not challenged by the Supreme Court "the government is free to label virtually any person on the globe an enemy alien and deprive recourse to the civilian court."

The lawyers argue grave consequences if the administration lawyers are not reigned in. "The (U.S.) Constitution cannot be contorted into this senseless position without doing grave damage to the rule of law," the legal team wrote. "Concerns that the executive has usurped the function of the judiciary are at the highest when the executive seeks to deny access to a right as fundamental as habeas corpus.

"This right is part of our constitutional bulwark against tyranny," the brief states, quoting the Federalist Papers.

The brief notes that only once before did a sovereign attempt to do what the Bush administration and Pentagon is doing with the Guantanamo prisoners. That was in 1660, when a military commander attempted to move prisoners to an island off England to escape the reach of the courts. That maneuver was used against him in impeachment hearings, and actually became the basis for the writ of habeas corpus in England and ultimately the United States.

....The military lawyers say there is no direct precedent in the case because the government "has never before consciously created a trial process, courtroom and other accoutrements of judicial process outside the battlefield and housed them all in an area calculated to divest civilian jurisdiction."

< Ohio Killer Cries Out Innocence As He is Executed | Andrew Fastow Pleads Guilty, Cooperates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft