Supreme Court Hears War-On-Terrorism Cases
Justices sound as if they will rule on the side of the Bush administration in case of the ‘Millennium Bomber’ and a US citizen who was arrested by US forces in Iraq.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments in two war-on-terrorism cases Tuesday — one that tests whether American civilians can seek the help of American courts if they are held in Iraq, and the other to determine whether the man who plotted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport will serve his full 22-year prison term.
In both cases, the justices sounded as though they would rule on the side of the Bush administration.
The first case, Munaf vs. Geren, asks the court again to define the reach of the right of habeas corpus: Does it give all persons who are held by U.S. authorities a right to appear before a U.S. court, even if the detainees are held outside the United States? Or is that right limited to those held in U.S. territory?
For the past four years, the justices have struggled to answer that question, which has been posed by foreigners detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration and Congress say these men do not have the right to have their cases heard in a U.S. court. That question is again pending before the justices.
The court will also decide whether the right to habeas corpus extends to Iraq. Mohammad Munaf, an Iraqi native who became a U.S. citizen in 2000, was arrested by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2005 and accused of involvement in the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists for whom he was working as a translator. He maintains his innocence and says he fears that, as a Sunni Muslim, he will be tortured and killed if the U.S. military turns him over to Iraqi authorities.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre said Tuesday that U.S. courts have no role in this case. Iraq is a sovereign country and has the right to enforce its criminal laws, he said. It may “try and punish individuals, including American citizens, who voluntarily enter its borders, commit crimes in its country and remain there,” he said.
Northwestern University law professor Joseph Margulies disagreed. He said Munaf was being held by the U.S. military, not the Iraqis. “When a United States citizen is detained abroad by the United States military officials who have effective authority and control over [him], the U.S. district court has jurisdiction over that citizen’s habeas petition,” he said.
Most of the justices said they were skeptical of giving judges in the United States the authority to decide the claims of persons held in Iraq.
In the second case, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey, making his first argument before the court, urged the justices to reinstate the 22-year prison term given to Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennium Bomber. In December 1999, he was arrested by a customs agent in Port Angeles, Wash., when he tried to cross the border from Canada with a car packed with explosives.
Regardless of how the court rules, Ressam will remain in prison because he was convicted of multiple felonies.
Last year, however, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned one count against him because the law was too open-ended. It calls for a 10-year mandatory prison term for anyone who “carries any explosive during the commission of any felony.” Ressam lied to a customs agent — a felony, under the law — and he had explosives in his car. If the high court upholds the appellate court decision, his original 22-year sentence could be recalculated.
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that this broad provision could lead to absurd results if prosecutors misused this power. For instance, he said, a person who drove to the post office to file a false tax statement could be given a 10-year term if he had firecrackers in his trunk.
Mukasey defended the law and its use. First, there was a clear connection between Ressam’s lying to the customs agent and the explosives in his car: He was trying to hide the plot.
Most of the justices said they agreed that Ressam deserved the full prison term, but they said they also remained trouble by the wording of the law.
Rulings in both cases are due by late June.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
“In both cases, the justices sounded as though they would rule on the side of the Bush administration.”
What a surprise; that’s why they were put there. Just wait until Nov when the election or Directive 51 ends up in the Supreme Court.
There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court that four funerals would not fix.
“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Amen!!
The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the US constitution would, on their face, seem to apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States.
If we’re so intent on exporting democracy, and “bringing freedom” to othere folks, whether they want it or not, I’d think that the Bill of Rights would be included in the package.
Wherever we go, our laws should go with us.
I don’t find anything in the Constitution that authorized the government to establish “law-free” zones.
But then, remember that this is the court that made the worst decision since Dred Scott — Gore v. Bush — wholly without legal merit and trasparently political.
That decision was the bullet in the back of Lady Liberty’s head. Since then, she’s been in a coma and is just talking a long time to die.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
Quote:
“Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre said Tuesday that U.S. courts have no role in this case. Iraq is a sovereign country and has the right to enforce its criminal laws, he said. It may “try and punish individuals, including American citizens, who voluntarily enter its borders, commit crimes in its country and remain there,” he said.
Northwestern University law professor Joseph Margulies disagreed. He said Munaf was being held by the U.S. military, not the Iraqis. “When a United States citizen is detained abroad by the United States military officials who have effective authority and control over [him], the U.S. district court has jurisdiction over that citizen’s habeas petition,” he said.”
OKAY, now what does that mean when Iraqi forces arrest a U.S. citizen for criminal conduct in Iraq?
Does a U.S. citizen committing criminal conduct in Iraq, but who’s not a member of the U.S. military at all, get treated as if he or she is under the “effective authority and control” of U.S. military command in Iraq? If not, then how would such a U.S. citizen be treated, would it be any differently?
What about when private “security”, mercenary firm employees commit crimes and are caught by Iraqi forces, police or army? Of course we know that the US govt will require that these criminals be handed over to the U.S. military command, or to US govt representatives in Iraq, that they will be kept clear of or from being indicted for their crimes. But besides for that “little” technicality, what theoretically should happen with these U.S. mercenaries committing crimes in Iraq, and which they do quite often?
I know what should happen to them, and permanently ceasing to be able to breathe is one way of putting it; but the above is posed nonetheless, for the purpose of formality, say.
The Iraqi govt demanded for the Blackwater psychopaths who massacred many Iraqi civilians on Sept. 16 2007 to be handed over for trials in Iraq, and “of course” the U.S. govt made sure that this would not happen.
Is it to always be that way, that only U.S. citizens caught committing crimes in Iraq [and] arrested (solely) by the U.S. military there can be handed over for trials in Iraq; that this would not apply when they are caught and arrested by Iraqi forces?
The U.S. Supreme Court is just doing its usual thing, working for Hell; but I theoretically ask or wonder about the above questions.