NO habeas rights for Bagram - The Firearms Forum

Marlin T · 05-25-2010, 08:47 AM

This is great news!!

Home

Court Decisions on Bagram Detainees
Court Decisions on Bagram Detainees

25 May 2010
We all are aware that war leads to difficult situations. In regard to detainees, we've seen terrorists released only to strike again. Yet in the interest of justice we are concerned about detaining potentially innocent people. Difficult times, difficult answers. In summary, some detainees at Bagram are trying to use American courts to chisel their way out.
Last year, a group of people were asked to join in offering an opinion to the court. Those were: Special Forces Association, U.S. Army Ranger Association, Senator Lindsey Graham, Col. (ret) Abraham German, Wade Ishimoto, Prof. Andrew Nichols Pratt, Dr. Dennis Walters, Rear Admiral (ret) George Worthington, Michael Yon and Senator Ryan Zinke.
The good attorneys who are trying to keep us from getting blown up by repeat offenders emailed today. The above parties received the following message from Attorneys David Rivkin and Carlos Ramos Mrosovsky:

Dear Gentlemen,
We are very happy to report a tremendous success in the Maqaleh litigation before the D.C. Circuit. Last Friday, the panel of three judges handed down their decision, as well as an opinion by Chief Judge Sentelle, which reversed the district court and ordered that the Bagram detainees' habeas petitions be dismissed. We have attached Judge Sentelle's opinion for your review.
It appears that our amicus brief was right on target. While both the government and counsel for the detainees made "bright line" arguments -- that is, they argued that habeas rights should always or should never apply on U.S. military bases overseas -- the court refused to accept either extreme position. Instead, it focused on the "practical factors" which were emphasized in our brief. In this regard, the most important language appears on page 22 of the decision: " . . . we hold that the third factor, that is 'the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ . . . weighs overwhelmingly in favor of the position of the United States." The court then concluded that the fact that Bagram is located within an active theater of war weighed strongly against extending habeas rights to detainees held there. Given the court's emphasis on the "practical difficulties" side of the analysis, we feel confident that the involvement of amici who could speak with ultimate credibility as to those difficulties cannot but have made an immense impact.
At this stage, it is too early to know whether counsel for the detainees will seek a final appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if she does so, however, we believe that, given the unanimous nature of the D.C. Circuit panel's decision and its well-reasoned character, the Supreme Court is most unlikely to grant this request. Overall, the D.C. Circuit's Maqaleh decision represents a significant victory.
Thank you again for your participation in this amicus briefing project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Best regards,
David & Carlos

BAGRAM OPINION
BAGRAM JUDGEMENT
AMICUS

wpage · 05-25-2010, 04:34 PM

Excellent!

hogger129 · 05-25-2010, 07:40 PM

These terrorists are not American citizens so why should our laws apply to them (meaning why do they have rights under our laws)?

Tom · 05-26-2010, 07:51 AM

IMO, it’s not that the Left care about the prisoners, it’s that they hate the United States and want us to loose the war against the radical ragheads, who if they win, will execute many of the Lefties first. Our real problem is that our President is also a hard core Leftie who also hates the US and was raised as a raghead and who has said in his own book that if it comes to a choice, he will side with the rag heads.

05-25-2010, 08:47 AM	#1
Marlin T Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Mexico Posts: 7,857	NO habeas rights for Bagram This is great news!! Home Michael's Dispatches Court Decisions on Bagram Detainees Court Decisions on Bagram Detainees 25 May 2010 We all are aware that war leads to difficult situations. In regard to detainees, we've seen terrorists released only to strike again. Yet in the interest of justice we are concerned about detaining potentially innocent people. Difficult times, difficult answers. In summary, some detainees at Bagram are trying to use American courts to chisel their way out. Last year, a group of people were asked to join in offering an opinion to the court. Those were: Special Forces Association, U.S. Army Ranger Association, Senator Lindsey Graham, Col. (ret) Abraham German, Wade Ishimoto, Prof. Andrew Nichols Pratt, Dr. Dennis Walters, Rear Admiral (ret) George Worthington, Michael Yon and Senator Ryan Zinke. The good attorneys who are trying to keep us from getting blown up by repeat offenders emailed today. The above parties received the following message from Attorneys David Rivkin and Carlos Ramos Mrosovsky: Dear Gentlemen, We are very happy to report a tremendous success in the Maqaleh litigation before the D.C. Circuit. Last Friday, the panel of three judges handed down their decision, as well as an opinion by Chief Judge Sentelle, which reversed the district court and ordered that the Bagram detainees' habeas petitions be dismissed. We have attached Judge Sentelle's opinion for your review. It appears that our amicus brief was right on target. While both the government and counsel for the detainees made "bright line" arguments -- that is, they argued that habeas rights should always or should never apply on U.S. military bases overseas -- the court refused to accept either extreme position. Instead, it focused on the "practical factors" which were emphasized in our brief. In this regard, the most important language appears on page 22 of the decision: " . . . we hold that the third factor, that is 'the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ . . . weighs overwhelmingly in favor of the position of the United States." The court then concluded that the fact that Bagram is located within an active theater of war weighed strongly against extending habeas rights to detainees held there. Given the court's emphasis on the "practical difficulties" side of the analysis, we feel confident that the involvement of amici who could speak with ultimate credibility as to those difficulties cannot but have made an immense impact. At this stage, it is too early to know whether counsel for the detainees will seek a final appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if she does so, however, we believe that, given the unanimous nature of the D.C. Circuit panel's decision and its well-reasoned character, the Supreme Court is most unlikely to grant this request. Overall, the D.C. Circuit's Maqaleh decision represents a significant victory. Thank you again for your participation in this amicus briefing project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Best regards, David & Carlos BAGRAM OPINION BAGRAM JUDGEMENT AMICUS __________________ "But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." Judge Alex Kozinski - United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. - Thomas Paine Did you read todays GOOD shooting? >>>KEEPANDBEARARMS.COM <<< -->

05-25-2010, 04:34 PM	#2
wpage Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,471	Re: NO habeas rights for Bagram Excellent! __________________ "You shall recieve power" Acts 1:8 W

05-25-2010, 07:40 PM	#3
hogger129 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,064	Re: NO habeas rights for Bagram These terrorists are not American citizens so why should our laws apply to them (meaning why do they have rights under our laws)? __________________ Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

05-26-2010, 07:51 AM	#4
Tom V.I.P. Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 197	Re: NO habeas rights for Bagram IMO, it’s not that the Left care about the prisoners, it’s that they hate the United States and want us to loose the war against the radical ragheads, who if they win, will execute many of the Lefties first. Our real problem is that our President is also a hard core Leftie who also hates the US and was raised as a raghead and who has said in his own book that if it comes to a choice, he will side with the rag heads.