Comments on: A new critique of Pentagon detainee panels

By: Stephen Jaros

Stephen Jaros — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:57:09 +0000

Reuben, the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over habeas cases and any other federal cases, unless Congress decides to remove that jurisdiction.

Which to my understanding is what it did with the MCA/DTA acts.

By: David Remes

David Remes — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:55:49 +0000

Steve,

As Chief Judge Ginsburg noted in his opinion for the D.C. Circuit in Bismullah, the CSRT process has been anything but transparent. The lawyers for the Guantanamo prisoners would be grateful if you could persuade the government to disclose the actual workings of the CSRT process more fully.

David Remes

By: Reuben Lack

Reuben Lack — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:55:55 +0000

But dosen’t the congressional statute in a way bars habeas claims? Does that not violate the Suspension Clause? There is no invasion or rebellion so the congressional act is unconstituional and therefore SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction to hear their claims. Congress can limit jurisdiction, but this is farther reaching than limits, this bars all claims.

By: Stephen Jaros

Stephen Jaros — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:00:28 +0000

I’m not sure why the District Court or the Supreme Court would want to give much weight to the testimony of a single officer. Lots of officers have participated in these CSRTs, so any allegations about the inadequacy of the process re the rights of defendants should be buttressed by testimony of the majority of the officers participating, or a random sample thereof. Otherwise, how do we know this one officer’s perspective is representative?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court shouldn’t be involved here anyway. Congress clearly passed legislation limiting appellate jurisdiction to the DC Circuit panel. Since Congress clearly has the constitutional right to do that, i’m not sure why the SCOTUS is involved at this point.