Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndyJackson; okie01
Okie01: If "illegal combatants" have the right of habeus corpus, why don't prisoners-of-war?

Andy Jackson: First, that is not what the decision said. What the decision said is that you have to hold a hearing to establish that they are illegal combattants.

Justice Scalia: The Court today holds that the habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. §2241, extends to aliens detained by the United States military overseas, outside the sovereign borders of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdictions of all its courts. This is not only a novel holding; it contra-dicts a half-century-old precedent on which the military undoubtedly relied, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950). The Court’s contention that Eisentrager was somehow negated by Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484 (1973)—a decision that dealt with a different issue and did not so much as mention Eisentrager—is implausible in the extreme. This is an irresponsible overturning of settled law in a matter of extreme importance to our forces currently in the field. I would leave it to Congress to change §2241, and dissent

20 posted on 07/21/2004 5:47:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07

I suggest, instead of reading Scalia's dissent you read the majority opinion.


23 posted on 07/21/2004 5:50:24 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson