Under Obama’s Reign, Habeas Corpus Rights Wrenched Away

John Glaser, June 12, 2012

The 2008 Supreme Court case Boumediene v. Bush ruled that Gitmo detainees – who had been caged indefinitely without charge or trial – could challenge their detentions in U.S. courts. Briefly thereafter, we saw a great number of Gitmo detainees released on the grounds that there was not enough evidence for their guilt. Under Obama’s reign though, habeas corpus rights for those accused of terrorism have been wrenched back. Adam Serwer at Mother Jones:

But in the years since the decision, conservative judges on the DC Circuit have interpreted the law in a way that assumes many of the government’s claims are true and don’t have to be proven in court. By not taking any of these cases, the Supreme Court has ensured these stricter rules will prevail. Civil-libertarian groups say that essentially leaves detainees at Gitmo with habeas rights in name only, since the rules make it virtually impossible for detainees to win in court. A Seton Hall University School of Law report from May found that, prior to the DC Circuit’s reinterpretation of the rules, detainees won 56 percent of cases. Afterwards, they won 8 percent.

…As a presidential candidate in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama praised the Boumediene decision. Earlier this year, his administration urged the Supreme Court not to take the Gitmo detainees’ appeal, leaving in place legal standards that civil libertarians argue render Boumediene almost meaningless.

Gitmo detainees have now lost virtually every avenue—other than dying in detention—for leaving the detention camp. Congress has curtailed transfers to other countries by making the restrictions on them nearly impossible to meet. Gitmo detainees can’t be brought to the United States for trial in federal court. And the Supreme Court has now effectively blessed legal standards that make success in court almost impossible. There are now 169 detainees left at Gitmo, and like the facility itself, they aren’t going anywhere.

Given the fact that the Republican Party doesn’t object to the Democratic Party’s swift embrace of George W. Bush’s detention policies, this issue is decidedly irrelevant. We will not hear about it in the upcoming Obama-Romney debates. Therefore, so-called liberals won’t have to answer for why they’re supporting the re-election of a candidate who has come to embody his oh-so-hated predecessor. Instead we’ll just hear unchallenged election-fever hysteria.




9 Responses to “Under Obama’s Reign, Habeas Corpus Rights Wrenched Away”

  1. that is morally and ethicly wrong how can he claim to be a president

  2. …in the first paragraph you admit the detainees have not even had trials under bush, then only slam obama for getting a lower trial success rate? That’d be fine if this wasn’t in your about us section “The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony.” Obama may be a murderer, but Bush was a mass murderer… And you blame “totalitarian liberals and social democrats”??? I thought I found a decent source for actual news on our governments doings. Too bad the site is full of retards still stuck in partisan mentality.

  3. Obama is Bush in sheep's clothing.

  4. The Supreme Court has now effectively blessed legal standards that make success in court almost impossible. There are now 169 detainees left at Gitmo, and like the facility itself, they aren’t going anywhere.

  5. Gitmo detainees have now lost virtually every avenue—other than dying in detention—for leaving the detention camp.

  6. Obama-Romney debates. Therefore, so-called liberals won’t have to answer for why they’re supporting the re-election of a candidate who has come to embody his oh-so-hated predecessor…

  7. Gitmo detainees can’t be brought to the United States for trial in federal court. And the Supreme Court has now effectively blessed legal standards that make success in court almost impossible.

  8. A Seton Hall University School of Law report from May found that, prior to the DC Circuit’s reinterpretation of the rules, detainees won 56 percent of cases. Afterwards, they won 8 percent.

  9. Eliminating haneas corpus appeal. Hmm, what could be wrong with that? I'm proofreading material by an author who has incontrovertible proof that Obama is a jihadist out to commit suicide-by-cop to bring about race-riots/martial law/and an emperor's throne to the Whitehouse. They're plan is called "Helter-Skelter." The author lives in fear fro his life & faces being spirited away sans charges & held as a terrorist; the only justification possible.
    I, having seen his proofs, know that it is true & cite the fact that Obama choked on the word "EXECUTE" in his oath of office 11 words in, enough to have to repeat the oath the next day. Indicative, especially if you listen to him do it.
    So if he is arrested, other than filing his work as cause in court, what about habeas corpus? Of course they have proof of terrorism manufactured. But of course it's too easily proved false IF he has that chance in court. We bought people for $3-5K to torture them. Obama has never said the word SLAVERY, not even to spare $!Billion in campaign funds; he's also campaigned in Abe Lincoln's literal train tracks; so yes, the 2 boobs are in cahoots.