Its hard to believe that before being elected President Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law at the university of Chicago. When the government of any country is willing to pass and enact laws which allow for the detention of its citizens for indefinitely whats the difference between a so called democracy and an authoritarian government. Not much with such laws one becomes one in the same.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a controversial bill that has been passed both separately, and jointly on 15 December 2011 by the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.[1][2][3] Though the White House[4] and Senate sponsors[5] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill.[7] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources
Habeas corpus /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/, Latin for "you [shall] 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, clause 2, which demands that "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 law affords persons the right to petition the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus petitions are generally filed as pro se cases, and the government (state or federal) is usually ordered by the court to respond. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition their own state court systems for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.
Federal habeas review did not extend to those in state custody until almost a century after the nation's founding. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, as later during the War on Terrorism, the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct. In reaction to the former, and to ensure state courts enforced federal law, a Reconstruction Act for the first time extended the right of federal court habeas review to those in the custody of state courts (prisons and jails), very greatly expanding the writ essentially to all imprisoned on American soil for the first time. The federal habeas statute that resulted, with substantial amendments, is now at 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For many decades now, the great majority of habeas petitions reviewed in federal court have been filed by those imprisoned in state prisons by state courts for state crimes (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, etc.), since in the American system crime has historically been a matter of state law. Thus, habeas is a very interesting area for the relationship between federal and state courts and systems of laws, within the study of federalism.
The privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest. If one believes the arrest is without legal merit and subsequently refuses to come willingly, he still may be guilty of resisting arrest, which can sometimes be a crime in and of itself (even if the initial arrest itself was illegal) depending on the state.
Jose Padilla
on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack. He was detained as amaterial witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.
On January 3, 2006, Padilla was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. On August 16, 2007, a federal jury found him guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. Government officials had claimed Padilla was suspected of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, but he was never charged with this crime, nor convicted on such a charge.
On January 22, 2008, Padilla was sentenced by Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 17 years and four months in prison. His mother, Estela Ortega Lebron was relieved but announced that they would appeal thejudgment: "You have to understand that the government was asking for 30 years to life sentence in prison. We have a chance to appeal, and in the appeal we're gonna do better."[1]
"Back then it was the Irish, now it's Muslims. But nobody is safe, one of the Guildford Four was English. Everyone thinks this happens to other people, but it's closer than you think.
Gerry Conlon wrongly convicted for the 1974 Guildford pub bombing
No comments:
Post a Comment