Napolitano: Does the Constitution mean what it says? | Chroniclers


But the government recognizes that Hela was not engaged in any hostility. Moreover, the United States itself is no longer engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, although Presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden have, from time to time, sent missiles to this fair scorched earth part of the world. to remind the people out there who claims to be King of the Hill.

Hela appealed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus and due process to the Federal Court of Appeal in Washington, DC. A three-judge panel of that tribunal chose not to deal directly with due process and instead denied Hela’s habeas request. This is not because the president – Trump at the time – claims the power to confine foreign supporters of foreign groups violently at odds with the United States, but for the historically new reason that Hela did no property in the United States and is not confined here. .

This is not only an absurd justification, as the Constitution imposes no property requirement as a prerequisite for the use of habeas corpus, but it also defies several Supreme Court opinions which argue that wherever the government goes legally and permanently, the Constitution goes with it. In other words, the tribunal ruled that the government must uphold basic human and constitutional rights for all those it confines for more than a period, including those in Guantanamo Bay.

Why is this case important?

Source link


Leave A Reply