by James Oliphant
In a decision related to its landmark holding Thursday granting Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court held that American citizens held prisoner in Iraq can also challenge their detentions in federal court.
The court's ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was unanimous in holding that two American Muslims who traveled to Iraq to fight coalition forces there have access to U.S. federal courts to object to their continued detention in Iraq.
The government had argued that because Shawnqi Omar and Mohammed Munaf were captured and held by a multi-national force, the federal habeas corpus statute did not apply to them. The court rejected that argument, saying that the two were being held by a force clearly under American control.
However, the court also held that federal judges do not have the power to issue orders to prevent prisoners in Iraq from being transferred into custody of the Iraqi government. The two men petitioned the U.S. District Court in Washington to attempt their being handed over to the Iraqi criminal justice system.
You can read the full opinion here.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Even his own appointees know that the President has overstepped his authority. Something he has done throughout his two terms!! Some call it incompetence, some negligence, some even go so far as to suggest, criminal!! I do know, that the failures, blunders and malicious scheming are inexcusable !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | June 12, 2008 12:36 PM
The Court's decision narrowly looks at detainees and does not paint them all with a broad brush. This ruling has nothing to do with capturing non-uniformed enemy combatants on the battle field. The decision has everything to do with capturing American citizens and affording these citizens their right to trial and habeas corpus. It has everything to do with who was prosecuting this war - the U.S. Essentially now if you are an Americam citizen and want to go to fight with a country or enemy who is fighting the U.S., if captured on the battle field, instead of going to a prisoner of war camp, you get to go to court.
Let's move on.
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com
Posted by: Ken Moyes | June 12, 2008 1:41 PM
"BUSH/CHERTOFF/CHENEY/ADDINGTON/FIELDING/ GONZALES SPEAK"
IT'S CONGRESS'S FAULT!
TOO MUCH "CONGRESSIONAL CHURN"
TOO MUCH "OVERSIGHT"
TOO MUCH "JUDICIARY"
TOO MUCH TIME WAISTED!
IT'S CONGRESS'S FAULT!
IT'S CHRIS DODDS FAULT!
NO "IMMUNITY PROTECTION LIABILITY"
NO "MILITARY TRIBUNALS"
IT'S CONGRESS'S FAULT!
TOO MUCH "CONGRESSIONAL CHURN" TOO MUCH OVERSIGHT!
NOW WHAT!
THEY GOT RIGHTS!
THEY GOT HABEAUS RIGHTS!
"TORTURE" WE DON'T TORTURE, OH WE DID!
IT'S CONGRESS'S FAULT!
IT'S JOHN MCCAINS FAULT!
IT'S "MUKASEY'S FAULT"
WE NEED TO PASS A "WAR TRIBUNAL PARDON LAW"
RETROACTIVE TO MY "OATH SWEARING" CEREMONY!
Posted by: Roger Morris | June 12, 2008 4:14 PM
While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 12, 2008 10:44 PM