Bush III without the tax cuts.

Interesting take.

One could certainly argue that any detainee, anywhere, SHOULD have right of habeus. But that is not consistent with our jurisprudence.

Ever realized that military personnel have their full constitutional rights stripped from them upon enlistment (go with it) and are subjected to the UCMJ and “double jeopardy” (e.g. get in trouble in town and then you get in trouble all over again on base for being AWOL AND for whatever you originally got in trouble for)

Kinda. It wasn’t that there was no previous precedent. It was acknowledged that habeas applies in US territories. It really was a matter of whether or not Gitmo was a “territory”.

To say that Afghanistan is a territory is really a stretch too far by most any standard.

Gotcha.

One last query, could Bagram Air Base be considered a “territory” in the same way Gitmo is?
Isn’t Bagram also US real estate?

Chap,
I think I’m getting it now. It sounds like a case of determining how established law works in relation to new situations, which would explain why Boumediene was such a big deal, i.e. there was no previous precedent, so the Boumediene decision established one, correct?

Kinda. It wasn’t that there was no previous precedent. It was acknowledged that habeas applies in US territories. It really was a matter of whether or not Gitmo was a “territory”.

To say that Afghanistan is a territory is really a stretch too far by most any standard.

Thanks again for your help. I’ll do some more digging on my own.

One would not be surprised that a District Court judge could be wrong and or rogue.

One could certainly argue that any detainee, anywhere, SHOULD have right of habeus. But that is not consistent with our jurisprudence. The SC in Boumedine had to establish wrt Guantanamo that, if it walks and talks like a duck (if it is treated for all intents and purposes as a US territory), it is a duck (territory) for purposes of granting habeus.

I was convinced. I do not think it is entirely unreasonable to be unconvinced. But in any case, Afghanistan is a much much harder case to make.

Well, that seems to be the point, doesn’t it? The Administration is saying DON’T have recourse to American courts if they are in Afghanistan.

The high-lighted blurb in the post says the Administration is fighting the ruling of a district court. I’m wondering how the case got to the district court in the first place.

I guess I’m trying to understand if there is case law which the district court judge used to give standing to the detainees. I didn’t note an explanation in the linked article.

Thanks for your responses, Chap.

But what about Afghanistan? What statutes, precedents, etc allows them access to US courts?

Well, that seems to be the point, doesn’t it? The Administration is saying DON’T have recourse to American courts if they are in Afghanistan. Which is entirely consistent with Boumediene and other jurisprudence on habeas.

But what about Afghanistan? What statutes, precedents, etc allows them access to US courts?

As I understand, habeus corpus is a Constitutional protection for American citizens. How does this protection extend to foreign combatants in a foreign land…Any help would be appreciated

Glad to help Matty, Constitutional protections apply to terrorists everywhere – not as you mistakenly believe – American citizens. We here in America – at least those of us here legally – are subject to the International Law du jour. Yes, that’s a French phrase meaning “whatever some Euroweenie wants you to do today”.

As I understand, habeus corpus is a Constitutional protection for American citizens. How does this protection extend to foreign combatants in a foreign land, whether it be Afghanistan or Gitmo? What cases, what legal principles, allow for the Constitution to be used anywhere for anyone? How are our enemies allowed to challenge their detention in US courts?

Any help would be appreciated. I’ve wondered about this for years, but have never gotten a response other than various talking points. Thanks.