Why is US Flouting Rules on Prisoners?
Ernst Blofeld
>
> > Until the courts get involved.
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/21/national1512EST0691.DTL
>
> ----
> A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a petition by civil rights
> advocates who want the Afghan detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
> to be brought before a U.S. court.
>
> U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that the civil rights
> advocates do not have standing to bring the case, and that even if
> they did, no U.S. federal court would have jurisdiction to hear it.
> Certainly there is a federal question presented by a writ of habeas corpus.
>I think the appeal is not a foregone conclusion.
Volkoh Conspiracy:
====
GUANTANAMO DETAINEES' CLAIMS REJECTED: Just read Tuesday's decision in
Rasul v. Bush, where a federal district court judge rejected various
claims by Guantanamo detainees. The judge concluded that the federal
courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought by aliens who are
detained outside U.S. sovereign territory (and military bases in
foreign countries, such as Guantanmo, don't count as U.S. sovereign
territory).
====
"The court...finds it is without jurisdiction to consider the merits
of these two cases. Additionally, as the court finds that no court
would have jurisdiction to hear these actions, the court shall dismiss
both suits with prejudice."
Disadvantage: Langsetmo!
Arne Langsetmo
Do you have a URL for the opinion?
I am not surprised that the court ruled they have no "jurisdiction"
over Guantanamo, but that's a strange notion. The gummint claim is
that the U.S. doesn't have territorial jurisdiction there, but at
the same time, it seems no one else does. The U.S. is "sovereign"
over the Guantanamo Bay property, but no jurisdiction? Does that
mean that if I go to Guantanamo Bay and kill someone, there is
no court that can touch me? I doubt it, but that would seem to
be the implication of this decision.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Ernst Blofeld
Arne Langsetmo wrote:
> >
> > ====
> > GUANTANAMO DETAINEES' CLAIMS REJECTED: Just read Tuesday's decision in
> > Rasul v. Bush, where a federal district court judge rejected various
> > claims by Guantanamo detainees. The judge concluded that the federal
> > courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought by aliens who are
> > detained outside U.S. sovereign territory (and military bases in
> > foreign countries, such as Guantanmo, don't count as U.S. sovereign
> > territory).
> > ====
> Do you have a URL for the opinion?
http://www.nimj.org/documents/02-299.pdf
> I am not surprised that the court ruled they have no "jurisdiction"
> over Guantanamo, but that's a strange notion. The gummint claim is
> that the U.S. doesn't have territorial jurisdiction there, but at
> the same time, it seems no one else does.
Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty.
> The U.S. is "sovereign"
> over the Guantanamo Bay property, but no jurisdiction?
The US is not sovereign over Guantanamo.
Arne Langsetmo
Sorry, my bad. Brain spasm. I couldn't remember which of these
two things the gummint was claiming while denying the other.
The treaty states that:
"while on the one hand the United States recognizes the
continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic
of Cuba. . ."
The gummint goes on to argue that, pursuant to Eisentrager,
if there is no sovereignty over the territory, there is no
jurisdiction.
Perhaps they should have read a bit more, as the treaty
(which, as we all know is the law of the land) then states:
". . . on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents
that during the period of occupancy by the United States
of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United
States shall exercise _complete_ _jurisdiction_ and control
over and within said areas. . . "
The gummint's argument would make Orwell shake his head in
amasement. Hard to deny you have jurisdiction when you have
jurisdiction, I'd say. Here's what the Rasul opinion says
further on:
"Thus, _Cuban_ _American_ _Bar_ _Association_ stands
for the proposition that the military base at Guantanamo
Bay is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States simply because the United States _exercises_
_jurisdiction_ and control over that facility."
It's things like this that give lawyers a bad name.
FWIW, later in the opinion, the court distinguishes Ralpho
on the basis that it "treated Micronesia as the equivalent
of a United States territory, such as Puerto Rico or Guam."
Hate to say it, but the reason Guam is a "territory" is
that we took the damn place over, pretty much as we did
Guantanamo. But furthermore, if Micronesia is such a
"territory", then surely Guantanamo Bay is, being _completely_
and totally ruled by the United States.
The gummint's simply wrong here.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo