12m denied habeas corpus right in US

Published October 20, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 19: The military tribunals legislation signed by President George Bush on Tuesday marks the first time in the history of the United States that the right of habeas corpus has been curtailed by law for about 12 million permanent residents or Green Card holders.

Although the debate about the new legislation focused on trials at the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it also takes away the right to go to court for non-citizens in the United States if they are declared ‘unlawful enemy combatants’.

This law creates two classes of persons inside the United States, citizens with rights and non-citizens — 12 million permanent residents without rights.

Till Oct 17, the principle of habeas corpus meant that anyone thrown into jail had a right to ask a judge to hear his case. He also had a right to go free if the government could not show a legal basis for holding him.

The new law says: “No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined ... to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

In early drafts, the bill would have cut off habeas corpus only for unlawful combatants detained “outside the United States” and at Guantánamo Bay. However, the final version deleted that phrase.

Now it not only bars the men held at Guantánamo Bay from challenging their detention in court, but it closes the courthouse door to non-citizens (Green Card holders) who are arrested in US and held by the military as a possible ‘unlawful enemy combatant’.

The new law also defines this term broadly to include not just terrorists and fighters, but also people — including American citizens — who have “materially supported hostilities against the United States.”

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution makes clear that habeas corpus can be “suspended,” but only during extreme emergencies. It says, “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.”

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...