3 ms·

Can you support your claim for the seven days limitation? In the Wikipedia link they use the term "indefinite detention without trial" EDIT: Also here - http:/

by idoco 13y ago

Can you support your claim for the seven days limitation? In the Wikipedia link they use the term "indefinite detention without trial" EDIT: Also here - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry....

einhverfr 13y ago
Ok, so what the USAPATRIOT Act allegedly does (and I want to expand on this below) is allow up to 7 days of detention without habeas petitions having any effect. This can then be extended, allegedly to 6 months, and renewed every six months indefinitely. This is what the statute says. So that's what the statute claims to do. In practice it probably does not do so. There are two reasons to think this. First you have the fact that even the Bush Administration refused to rely on this provision during either Padilla case, arguing instead that the AUMF of 2001 was the authority to detain, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdi that there was at least some Habeas Corpus protection available to those detained under the AUMF, but the exact amount was unclear. It's further worth noting that the Supreme Court threw out Padilla's first habeas petition as improperly filed when Handi was released and in the subsequent petition case (Padilla v. Hanft), the DoJ continued to argue on AUMF grounds, not on suspension clause grounds. When Padilla lost in the 4th Circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court on the second time, the government abruptly decided to charge him in federal court, and then asked the 4th circuit to vacate their decision, which the 4th circuit declined to do (I think that such an effort on Bush's part was meant to slow down the next case). The second problem is Boumediene v. Bush (decided three years after Hamdi and Padilla v. Hanft), which held that the Military Commissions Act was a suspension of habeas, but that judges should hear habeas petitions anyway, arguing that judges had the power to grant habeas petitions even if Congress suspended the writ. This means that Congress claiming to say habeas doesn't apply doesn't in fact mean that habeas doesn't apply. I read Supreme Court cases for fun. I suppose this means I need a life :-P
- ruv 13y ago
  Administrative arrest in Israel isn't indefinite, there's a similar process where they ask a judge to prolong it and as a citizen I believe that they do. However from what we understand from the media, they might be asking the judges without explaining the details to them because of confidentiality.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    The point is you can't ask a judge to prolong it in the US. You ask a judge for your right to be charged or released. That is why I say I don't think the six month renewals have any effect.

by idoco 13y ago

einhverfr 13y ago

Ok, so what the USAPATRIOT Act allegedly does (and I want to expand on this below) is allow up to 7 days of detention without habeas petitions having any effect. This can then be extended, allegedly to 6 months, and renewed every six months indefinitely. This is what the statute says. So that's what the statute claims to do. In practice it probably does not do so. There are two reasons to think this. First you have the fact that even the Bush Administration refused to rely on this provision during either Padilla case, arguing instead that the AUMF of 2001 was the authority to detain, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdi that there was at least some Habeas Corpus protection available to those detained under the AUMF, but the exact amount was unclear. It's further worth noting that the Supreme Court threw out Padilla's first habeas petition as improperly filed when Handi was released and in the subsequent petition case (Padilla v. Hanft), the DoJ continued to argue on AUMF grounds, not on suspension clause grounds. When Padilla lost in the 4th Circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court on the second time, the government abruptly decided to charge him in federal court, and then asked the 4th circuit to vacate their decision, which the 4th circuit declined to do (I think that such an effort on Bush's part was meant to slow down the next case). The second problem is Boumediene v. Bush (decided three years after Hamdi and Padilla v. Hanft), which held that the Military Commissions Act was a suspension of habeas, but that judges should hear habeas petitions anyway, arguing that judges had the power to grant habeas petitions even if Congress suspended the writ. This means that Congress claiming to say habeas doesn't apply doesn't in fact mean that habeas doesn't apply. I read Supreme Court cases for fun. I suppose this means I need a life :-P

ruv 13y ago
Administrative arrest in Israel isn't indefinite, there's a similar process where they ask a judge to prolong it and as a citizen I believe that they do. However from what we understand from the media, they might be asking the judges without explaining the details to them because of confidentiality.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  The point is you can't ask a judge to prolong it in the US. You ask a judge for your right to be charged or released. That is why I say I don't think the six month renewals have any effect.