Detainee Treatment Act: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>George Swan
(more details)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(copy edit and reduced emotional writing; removed repetitive cites and substantive quotes buried in cites)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
The '''Detainee Treatment Act of 2005''' is an act passed by the [[United States Congress]] on [[December 31]] [[2005]], specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives the [[United States]] apprehended during its "[[Global War on Terror]]".<ref name=JuristDTA>
The '''Detainee Treatment Act of 2005''' is an act passed by the [[United States Congress]] on [[December 31]] [[2005]], specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives the [[United States]] apprehended during its [[War on Terror]].<ref name=JuristDTA>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php
Line 6: Line 6:
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| date=December 31 2005
| date=December 31 2005
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
}}</ref><ref name=JuristDTA20060420>
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/what-detainee-treatment-act-really.php
| title=What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| author=[[Jonathan Hafetz]]
| date=April 20, 2006
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
| quote=
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
 
==Permitted interrogation techniques==
==Explicitly only allows the techniques in the Army Field Manual on interrogation==


[[United States Senator]] [[John McCain]], who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of [[North Vietnam]], is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act.   
[[United States Senator]] [[John McCain]], who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of [[North Vietnam]], is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act.   
Line 35: Line 25:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


==Stripped captives of the right to initiate habeas corpus petitions==
==Detainees may not petition for habeas corpus==


The Act also stripped captives of the right to initiate habeas corpus petitions in the US Justice system.<ref name=NYtimes20070912>
The Act stated detainees have no standing to file [[habeas corpus]] petitions.<ref name=NYtimes20070912>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12gitmo.html?ref=todayspaper
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12gitmo.html?ref=todayspaper
Line 60: Line 50:
In the event the Judicial Branch interpreted this as prohibiting Guantanamo captives from initiating new habeas corpus petitions, but allowing existing habeas corpus petitions to run their course.
In the event the Judicial Branch interpreted this as prohibiting Guantanamo captives from initiating new habeas corpus petitions, but allowing existing habeas corpus petitions to run their course.


While the Act stripped captives of the right to initiate new habeas corpus petitions, it opened a more narrow avenue for appeal.<ref name=NYtimes20070912/><ref name=Slate20071016/> 
In lieu of habeas corpus petitions, captives were allowed to submit requests to a [[Washington DC]] court of appeals. The appeals court had the option of reviewing the evidence the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]] used to confirm that the captive was an [[enemy combatant]], if it thought the captive had a reasonable claim the Tribunal had not complied with the rules laid out for it.<ref name=NYtimes20070912/>
Captives were allowed to submit requests to a [[Washington DC]] court of appeals.
 
The appeals court had the option of reviewing the evidence the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]] used to confirm that the captive was an "[[enemy combatant]]", if it thought the captive had a reasonable claim the Tribunal had not complied with the rules laid out for it.
Certain prisons, who had been determined not to be enemy combatants by CSRTs, were left with no means of appeal, according to legal writer [[Jonathon Hafetz]].<ref name=JuristDTA20060420>
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/what-detainee-treatment-act-really.php
| title=What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| author=[[Jonathan Hafetz]]
| date=April 20, 2006
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
}}</ref>


[[Jonathon Hafetz]], writing in ''[[The Jurist]]'', commented that this left nine captives whose Tribunals had determined that they [[no longer enemy combatant|were not enemy combatants after all]] had no where to appeal their detention, even though they had been essentially ruled innocent.<ref name=JuristDTA20060420/>


==The DTA and the Military Commissions Act of 2006==
==The DTA and the Military Commissions Act of 2006==


One of the habeas corpus petitions that continued to proceed after the passage of the DTA was [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]].<ref name=JuristMCA20070227>
One of the habeas corpus petitions that continued to proceed after the passage of the DTA was [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]],<ref name=JuristMCA20070227>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/why-boumediene-was-wrongly-decided.php
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/why-boumediene-was-wrongly-decided.php
| title=Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided  
| title=Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided  
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| publisher=The Jurist
| author=[[Marjorie Cohn]]
| author=Marjorie Cohn
| date=February 27, 2007
| date=February 27, 2007
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
| quote=
}}</ref>
}}</ref>, which the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled  that the [[Executive Branch]] lacked the [[United States Constitution|constitutional authority]] to authorize military commissions.  It ruled that this authority lay with Congress.
One of the consequences, when the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled on this petition, in the summer of 2006, is that it shut down the [[Guantanamo military commission|military commissions]] the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] set up to try captives. The Supreme Court ruled that the [[Executive Branch]] lacked the [[United States Constitution|constitutional authority]] to authorize military commissions.  It ruled that this authority lay with Congress.


Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, the United States Congress passed the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] (MCA).  The MCA authorized Military Commissions very similar to those set up by the Presidency.  It also specified that all the captive's outstanding habeas corpus petitions would be stayed.
Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, the United States Congress passed the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] (MCA).  The MCA authorized Military Commissions very similar to those set up by the Presidency.  It also specified that all the captive's outstanding habeas corpus petitions would be stayed.
Line 84: Line 81:
==Appeals in Federal court==
==Appeals in Federal court==


On Monday [[June 23]] [[2008]] it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of [[Huzaifa Parhat]]'s Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday [[June 20]] [[2008]].<ref name=Wapo20080623>
On June 23, 2008, it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of [[Huzaifa Parhat]]'s Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday [[June 20]] [[2008]].<ref name=Wapo20080623>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
| title=Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner
| title=Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner
| publisher=[[Washington Post]]
| publisher=[[Washington Post]]
| author=[[James Vicini]]
| author=James Vicini
| date=2008-06-23
| date=2008-06-23
| accessdate=2008-06-23
| accessdate=2008-06-23
| quote=
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F06%2F23%2FAR2008062300844.html&date=2008-06-23 mirror]
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F06%2F23%2FAR2008062300844.html&date=2008-06-23 mirror]
</ref><ref name=McClatchyParhat20080623>
</ref>
{{cite news
 
| url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html
Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in [[Boumediene v. Bush]].
| title=In first, court rejects military's ruling in Guantanamo case
However, the appeals court's ruling was under the section of the Detainee Treatment Act that allowed captives to challenge their Combatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that they were "enemy combatants" -- not due to the Supreme Court's restoration of their right to mount habeas corpus petitions.
| publisher=[[McClatchy News Service]]
 
| date=2008-06-23
The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' quoted comments on the ruling from [[David Cole]], the author of two books on military law:
| accessdate=2008-06-23
<blockquote>Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place.
| quote=
Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom.<ref name=LosAngelesTimes20080624>
}}
</ref><ref name=Iht20080623>
{{cite news
| url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Guantanamo-Chinese-Muslim.php
| title=US appeals court rejects classification of Chinese Muslim as an enemy combatant
| publisher=[[International Herald Tribune]]
| date=2008-06-23
| accessdate=2008-06-23
| quote=
}}
</ref><ref name=Cnn20080623>
{{cite news
| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/gitmo.chinese.muslim/
| title=Court rules in favor of Chinese Muslim held at Gitmo
| publisher=[[CNN]]
| author=[[Bill Mears]]
| date=2008-06-23
| accessdate=2008-06-23
| quote=
}}
</ref><ref name=LosAngelesTimes20080624>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gitmo24-2008jun24,0,6727416.story
| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gitmo24-2008jun24,0,6727416.story
| title=Court rules for Guantanamo inmate
| title=Court rules for Guantanamo inmate
| publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]]
| publisher=Los Angeles Times
| author=[[Josh Meyer]]
| author=Josh Meyer
| date=2008-06-24
| date=2008-06-24
| accessdate=2008-06-24
| quote="It is a tremendous day. It is a very conservative court, but we pressed ahead and we won unanimously," said lawyer P. Sabin Willett. "But Huzaifa Parhat is now in his seventh year of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, and he doesn't even know about this ruling because he's sitting in solitary confinement and we can't tell him about it. That's what we do to people in this country -- we put them in solitary confinement even when they are not enemy combatants."
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fwashingtondc%2Fla-na-gitmo24-2008jun24%2C0%2C6727416.story&date=2008-06-24 mirror]
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fwashingtondc%2Fla-na-gitmo24-2008jun24%2C0%2C6727416.story&date=2008-06-24 mirror]
</ref>
</ref></blockquote>
Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in [[Boumediene v. Bush]].
However, the appeals court's ruling was under the section of the Detainee Treatment Act that allowed captives to challenge their Combatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that they were "enemy combatants" -- not due to the Supreme Court's restoration of their right to mount habeas corpus petitions.
 
The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' quoted comments on the ruling from [[David Cole]], the author of two books on military law<ref name=LosAngelesTimes20080624/>:
{{quotation|"Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place.
Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom."}}


==References==
==References==
<references/>
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 21:36, 8 December 2008

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 is an act passed by the United States Congress on December 31 2005, specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives the United States apprehended during its War on Terror.[1]

Permitted interrogation techniques

United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of North Vietnam, is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act. He argued that the interrogation techniques used on American captives should be restricted to those techniques described in the United States Army's Field Manual on interrogation. Vice President Dick Cheney argued that these restrictions should only apply to captives in military custody, and that the CIA should still be allowed to employ "extended interrogation techniques".[2]

Detainees may not petition for habeas corpus

The Act stated detainees have no standing to file habeas corpus petitions.[3][4] In the event the Judicial Branch interpreted this as prohibiting Guantanamo captives from initiating new habeas corpus petitions, but allowing existing habeas corpus petitions to run their course.

In lieu of habeas corpus petitions, captives were allowed to submit requests to a Washington DC court of appeals. The appeals court had the option of reviewing the evidence the Combatant Status Review Tribunal used to confirm that the captive was an enemy combatant, if it thought the captive had a reasonable claim the Tribunal had not complied with the rules laid out for it.[3]

Certain prisons, who had been determined not to be enemy combatants by CSRTs, were left with no means of appeal, according to legal writer Jonathon Hafetz.[5]


The DTA and the Military Commissions Act of 2006

One of the habeas corpus petitions that continued to proceed after the passage of the DTA was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[6], which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch lacked the constitutional authority to authorize military commissions. It ruled that this authority lay with Congress.

Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, the United States Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The MCA authorized Military Commissions very similar to those set up by the Presidency. It also specified that all the captive's outstanding habeas corpus petitions would be stayed.

Appeals in Federal court

On June 23, 2008, it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of Huzaifa Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday June 20 2008.[7]

Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. However, the appeals court's ruling was under the section of the Detainee Treatment Act that allowed captives to challenge their Combatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that they were "enemy combatants" -- not due to the Supreme Court's restoration of their right to mount habeas corpus petitions.

The Los Angeles Times quoted comments on the ruling from David Cole, the author of two books on military law:

Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place. Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom.[8]

References

  1. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, The Jurist, December 31 2005. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  2. R. Jeffrey Smith, Josh White. Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees, Washington Post, October 25 2005, p. A01. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  3. 3.0 3.1 William Glaberson. Officials Cite Danger in Revealing Detainee Data, 'New York Times', Wednesday, September 12 2007, p. A18. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
  4. Dahlia Lithwick. The Dog Ate My Evidence: What happens when the government can't re-create the case against you?, Slate Magazine, Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-03-01.
  5. Jonathan Hafetz. What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees, The Jurist, April 20, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  6. Marjorie Cohn. Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided, The Jurist, February 27, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  7. James Vicini. Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner, Washington Post, 2008-06-23. Retrieved on 2008-06-23. mirror
  8. Josh Meyer. Court rules for Guantanamo inmate, Los Angeles Times, 2008-06-24. mirror