Who Will Stop The Torture Update-20a

04/02/07

Who Will Stop The Torture Update-20a

11:35:18 pm, Categories: Guantanamo, Torture, Habeas Corpus, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Detainees

Sadly, the United States Supreme Court has refused to review the pathetic decision of the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Al Odah v. USA and Boumediene v. Bush.

"Despite the obvious importance of the issues raised in these cases, we are persuaded that traditional rules governing our decision of constitutional questions, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 341 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), and our practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus, cf. Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 (1944) (per curiam), make it appropriate to deny these petitions at this time. However, “[t]his Court has frequently recognized that the policy underlying the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine does not require the exhaustion of inadequate remedies.” Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561, 570, n. 12 (1947) (Rutledge, J., concurring). If petitioners later seek to establish that the the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Tit. X, 119 Stat. 2739, or some other and ongoing injury, alternative means exist for us to consider our jurisdiction over the allegations made by petitioners before the Court of Appeals. See 28 U. S. C. §§1651(a), 2241. Were the Government to take additional steps to prejudice the position of petitioners in seeking review in this Court, “courts of competent jurisdiction,” including this Court, “should act promptly to ensure that the office and purposes of the writ of habeas corpus are not compromised.” Padilla v. Hanft, 547 U. S. 1062, 1064 (2006) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in denial of certiorari)." --Boumediene v. Bush--

Warnings that future review is an option does nothing to stop the torture, today. The dissent has it right:

"I would grant the petitions for certiorari and expedite argument in these cases. I Petitioners, foreign citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, raise an important question: whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109–366, 120 Stat. 2600, deprives [sic] courts of jurisdiction to consider their habeas claims, and, if so, whether that deprivation is constitutional. I believe these questions deserve this Court’s immediate attention." --Boumediene v. Bush, dissent--

The majority refusal to grant certiorari and minority dissent can be downloaded here and here, respectively.

Link to Misblog's: