The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, brainchild of Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy, seeks to return to federal district courts the cases of alien enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay.The Habeas Corpus habeas corpus (hā`bēəs kôr`pəs) [Lat.,=you should have the body], writ directed by a judge to some person who is detaining another, commanding him to bring the body of the person in his custody at a specified time to a Restoration Act of 2007, brainchild of Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy, seeks to return to federal district courts the cases of alien enemy In International Law, a foreign born citizen or subject of a nation or power that is hostile to the United States. An alien enemy is an individual who, due to permanent or temporary allegiance to a hostile power, is regarded as an enemy in wartime. combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Its title is a misnomer misnomer n. the wrong name. MISNOMER. The act of using a wrong name. 2. Misnomers, may be considered with regard to contracts, to devises and bequests, and to suits or actions. 3.-1. . Habeas corpus can be suspended and restored only where a person is entitled to it in the first place. Alien enemy combatants, however, are not vested with rights under the Constitution. The 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld For the case involving Guantanamo military commissions, see . Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. case, which Specter has cited in support of his position, did not involve aliens at all. The greater flaw in the Specter-Leahy legislation, however, is its abdication abdication, in a political sense, renunciation of high public office, usually by a monarch. Some abdications have been purely voluntary and resulted in no loss of prestige. of duty. The conduct of war--a core component of which is the handling of enemy prisoners--is a political responsibility, not a legal one. If Specter and Leahy believe the current system is unjust, they should propose an alternative. The courts do not answer to the voters whose lives are at risk. Punting the question to them is a foolish, and potentially dangerous, course. |
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion