If Guantanamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus, would prisoners at Bagram too?
And the question, basically, is whether they have the right to habeas corpus.
Last January, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he questioned whether the Constitution granted a right to habeas corpus.
Justices Samuel Alito and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered whether detainees held at other bases in Germany or Iraq, for instance, would also have a right to habeas corpus.
Now, the detainees will be able to petition for habeas corpus the right to be brought before a court to determine whether they have been lawfully detained.
The Bush administration argues that Congress approved just such an alternative when it stripped the courts of the right to hear the detainees' habeas corpus challenges.
The two things that I have a serious problem with are the fact that they're trying to take away the right of habeas corpus.
Clement reiterated the government's argument that never before in the history of warfare has a U.S. prisoner of war had a right to challenge his detention with a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. courts.
And in an article in the New York Times this week the White House chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, stepped back on one point: defendants will have the right of appeal to civilian courts (through a habeas corpus proceeding).
The detainees claim that they have the right to challenge their imprisonment in the U.S. courts, using the constitutionally guaranteed procedure called a writ of habeas corpus.
Last year he filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court saying the New York court where he was convicted violated his constitutional right to present a defense by not giving him exculpatory evidence prior to trial.
Finally, when the appeals were done and the convictions upheld, the defendants began filing habeas corpus petitions - a practice that continues to this day - claiming that this or that constitutional right was infringed, or that this or that prison condition was inhumane.
应用推荐