Arrest warrant · Search warrant
Probable cause · Knock-and-announce
Exigent circumstance
Reasonable suspicion
Search and seizure · Search of persons
Arrest · Detention
Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.)
Grand jury
Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi
Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law
Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition
Habeas corpus · Bail
Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system
Arraignment · Information · Indictment
Plea · Peremptory plea
Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain
Presentence Investigation
Criminal defenses
Criminal law · Evidence
Civil procedure
Habeas corpus (/'heɪbiəs 'kɔɹpəs/), Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:
“ 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. ”United States federal law affords persons the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus mainly if held by the federal authorities or for violations of the United States Constitution. Habeas corpus petitions are generally argued as ex parte cases. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.
How is that ridiculous? I think there is a process by which things should function. To me, this is a correct legal step ...this is more like. them being accountable to "we the people"...
Opinion (Boumediene v. Bush), A primer on Guantanamo prison camps, Guantanamo by the numbers
This one is easy Sean. Our soldiers will not bring Osama in, if you know what I mean. Why should they? Why should they bring any prisioners in anymore? This is one of those things that looks good for POWs, but will backfire. POWs will now become KIAs. Things are the way they are for a reason. When your country and your courts turn against you, you have to do it yourself.
This is exactly why McCain must be president and appoint more justices like Roberts. This Supreme Court has done enough damage.
Yes, the liberal Nazis are busy stamping out all opposition and ridding the world of anyone who is trying to stop their stupidity.
I am blown away by this. Foreign jiahists picked up in a war authorized by Congress, classified as unlawful enemy combatants because they have no government or flag, now have access of civilian courts. So if Mohammed al Jiad says he has a witness is Pakistan that will testify he is not a terrorist do we go to Pakistan and find this person to testify?
What is even more disgusting is they were being held because of #1-Danger to the world #2-If we sent them back home they would either be tortured/murdered or wrongfully set free. Some of these cockroaches have maintained they have killed Americans and will kill more Americans until they are "martyred."
This is not a rebuke of President Bush, this is a rebuke of Liberalism as a whole and America because it sets a terrible and dangerous precedent.
This is exactly why they are "unlawful" enemy combatants. We give and they take. We didn't have to give these scum Geneva Convention status and we did, we didn't have to give them the comforts of Gitmo (in comparison to any detention facility in the world) and we did.
SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the law not limit Presidential power and legislate from the bench.
The majority justifies stopping the recount entirely on the ground
that there is no more time. In particular, the majority relies on the
lack of time for the Secretary to review and approve equipment needed to separate undervotes. But the majority reaches this conclusion in the absence of any record evidence that the recount could not have been completed in the time allowed by the Florida Supreme Court. The majority finds facts outside of the record on matters that state courts are in a far better position to address. Of course, it is too late for any such recount to take place by December 12, the date by which election disputes must be
decided if a State is to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions
of 3 U.S.C. § 5. Whether there is time to conduct a recount prior to December 18, when the electors are scheduled to meet, is a matter for the state courts to determine. And whether, under Florida law, Florida could or could not take further action is obviously a matter for Florida courts, not this Court, to decide. See ante, at 13 (per curiam).
By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the Court is attempting to protect. The manual recount would itself redress a problem of unequal treatment of ballots..."
"I fear that in order to bring this agonizingly long election process to a definitive conclusion, we have not adequately attended to that necessary “check upon our own exercise of power,” “our own sense of self-restraint.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 79 (1936) (Stone, J., dissenting). Justice Brandeis once said of the Court, “The most important thing we do is not doing.” Bickel, supra, at 71. What it does today, the Court should have left undone. I would repair the damage done as best we now can, by permitting the Florida recount to continue under uniform standards."
[December 12] is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (December 12, 2000).
[I]n my opinion, December 12 was not a 'drop-dead' date under Florida law. In fact, I question whether any date prior to January 6 is a drop-dead date under the Florida election scheme. December 12 was simply a permissive 'safe-harbor' date to which the states could aspire. It certainly was not a mandatory contest deadline under the plain language of the Florida Election Code (i.e., it is not mentioned there) or this Court's prior rulings. Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (December 22, 2000) (Shaw, J. concurring; emphasis in original).
Sean-'slap, slap' don't get roped in. Greenwald makes about as much sense as he always does.
reality check: these people are foreign terrorists caught on the battlefield, they are designated unlawfull enemy combatants by several different levels of our military. In otherwards Dick Cheney doesn't walk into Pakistan and point at some shopkeeper and scream "combatant!' then they are shipped off to Gitmo. There is a process
Greenwald says:
"John Yoo defends the right of the Bush administration to imprison people at Guantanamo indefinitely with no judicial review and condemns last week's Supreme Court habeas corpus ruling as "judicial imperialism of the highest order."
First of all the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 balanced the national security needs with these supposed rights of detainees. They put in a system in which detainees went through a tribunal then a judicial review at the D.C. Court. For Greenwald make another accusation that we are imprisoning people indefinitely with no judicial review is a blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
Secondly Greenwald and these other deranged people seem to think there really isn't a war going on and most of the people are in there for some misunderstanding that can be resolved by all holding hands and singing happy songs. We all need to take a number of steps back and look at ourselves.
I didn't read all of Greenwalds piece, just FYI.
In all of this crap, the reality is on one side we have the enemy sawing off the heads of our innocent people, on the other side we have foreign terrorists and we are giving them habeas corpus rights. In the eyes of the world Americans look weak in the eyes of Americans liberals look weak, that's it.
All bullshit, every bit of it. If any of this garbage was even half true they would not be in Gitmo, your missing something. It says in the decent of the supreme court decision that every person was given an opportunity to question their confinement in front of a tribunel and then these would be reviewed by the DC court. Not one single petitioner brought forth their client, NOT ONE.
And good God why do just simply lay right down and believe every piece of crap you read, especially when you here the real or perceived enemys side of the story without even thinking that maybe your own country has a side. Do you think we like just snatching innocent people of streets and tossing them in jail? Or could there be classified evidence against these people that you will never here.
Does Greenwald mention the scum that were released from Gitmo and found to be innocent then went out and butchered more people?
As much as you make light of it SMB, what you're talking about is EXACTLY what bloc is concerned about. Minus the snipe.
Sheltercrow----So, why are you wasting your time? No one says you have to post comments here on this post, or read what anyone else is saying.
I didn't invite you to come onto my blog and insult my readers. You may disagree with SMB, but that doesn't give you any reason to call names. I don't believe for one minute that SMB is a worm or a professional no nothing.
Have you ever read SMB's blog? SMB makes some good arguments, and I would appreciate it if you continue to blog here, that you conduct yourself in a more respectful and polite manner.
Thank you.
