Defining Habeas corpus ...

ViRedd

New Member
A habeas corpus petition is a request that a court order a person be made available to it and, generally speaking, released from custody. While in theory, a habeas corpus petition can be used to apply to any person held by any person, public or private, 99%+ of habeas corpus petitions seek the release of someone in a prison or jail as a result of a criminal conviction, alleging that the detention is wrongful. In federal court, about 1% of habeas corpus petitions involve the death penalty, about 20% involve life sentences, and the remainder mostly involve long prison terms. State remedies, typically first direct appeals up to the state supreme court and then a state habeas corpus petition appealled up to the state supreme court, generally take roughly five years to exhaust, so the vast majority of prisoners are released before they are eligible for federal habeas corpus relief.
The right of the courts to release prisoners in a habeas corpus case is a fundamental right found in the United States Constitution and has roots back to ancient English law.
In cases, such as the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as a result of the Bush Administration enemy combatant policies (which are highly unusual because they do not involve criminal convictions), it is the only means of relief available to prisoners and the availability of habeas corpus relief is contested. The outcome of some of these cases was addressed in The Enemy Combatant Cases.
Habeas corpus law currently sets very strict standards for granting the release of a convicted prisoner. In recent times, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (which, despite its name, applies to all habeas corpus petitions) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (which applies to prisoner petitions other than habeas corpus petitions), have largely rendered ineffective efforts by prisoners to seek relief of any kind in the federal courts. The prisoner must have exhausted all other avenues of appeal. The average habeas corpus petition is filed five years after a state court conviction. The prisoner must show, either new evidence of actual innocence, or a clear violation of a constitutional or legal right by the courts which was not remedied on direct appeal. Even if in the reviewing court's opinion the prior courts got the law wrong, the reviewing court cannot overrule unless the prior courts were objectively unreasonable in their interpretation of the law. There is considerable doubt about the extent to which even "innocence" is a ground for releasing a person from prison and there are strict rules regarding which grounds for granting a petition for habeas corpus must be considered first. (See the cartoon at page 98 of this source to see how this feels from a prisoner's point of view).
There is no right to an attorney in a habeas corpus petition, a somewhat ironic rule of law because deprivation of the constitutional right to "effective assistance of counsel" (i.e. the claim that a person is in jail primarily because his lawyer screwed up) is one of the most common claims in habeas petitions. The vast majority of habeas corpus petitions in federal court are filed by prisoners without a lawyer (88% of appeals of prisoner petitons are "pro se" and at the trial level 93% of prisoner petitions are "pro se", courts appoint counsel in 4% of cases despite the fact that this is not legally required by the constitution, and non-court appointed counsel is present in 3% of cases at the trial level).
In federal court at the trial level, about 63% fail on proceedural grounds or because no legal reason for release is stated (57% of the total, i.e. 90% of petitions dismissed, are dismissed because not all state remedies have been exhausted), about 35% are denied on the merits, and about 2% are either granted or remanded to a state court for further consideration. At the trial level a typical federal habeas corpus petition which is dismissed is ruled on in 9 months, while a typical habeus corpus petition considered on the merits is ruled on in 16 months. A large percentage of habeas corpus petitons (probably in excess of 40%) are appealled. At the Court of Appeals level about two-thirds of prisoner petitions are denied on procedural grounds and about 15% of those cases considered on the merits produce some relief (i.e. relief is provided at the appellate level in somewhat less than 2% of all cases originally filed in the trial court). While no figures are available, it is safe to guess that at the very least, almost all of the procedural dismissals involved unrepresented prisoners, implying a much higher dismissal rate for "pro se" parties than for parties represented by attorneys.
[edit]
New Developments

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether a key detail of ADEPA, which limits the Courts to U.S. Supreme Court precedents only when determining the validity of a state court decision, is constitutional. Analysis is found here.
[edit]
References

  • Jennifer K. Elsea & Kenneth Thomas. "Guantanamo Detainees: Heabeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Courts." Congressional Research Service: CRS Report for Congress. December 7. 2005.
  • Liebman has prepared a balanced and comprehensive treatise on federal habeas corpus law and procedure, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure. It is regarded as the authoritative work in this field.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Do you type this shit up or do you cut and paste? Man you must be bored to type all that nonsense. The taking of Habias-Corpus is just another of a long list of assaults on our freedom by the Bush-Cheney regime, If we don't get them out soon, it will be worse than Orwells 1984. And by the way Vi, I don't need an encyclopedia to tell me that. They haven't targeted me yet, but when it will come is not known, this (Bush-Cheney Govt.) scares me a lot more than the terrorists!
 

Doobie006

Well-Known Member
Got to go with meduse on this. This administration definetly scare me more than the terrorists. I just realized that in the last 5 years, I can't remember one time where I thought my life was in danger because of terrorists. I however worry about my privacy and civil liberties on a daily basis.
 

arizonared

Active Member
Totally...Bush and his swaggering John Wayne, outa my way little lady while I clean up the town attitude...with his self-righteous God is on my side bullshit has got to go....and he can take his cadre of corporate criminals with him.... Amen
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Hey I've found a couple of allies here on the Bush debate. I was beginning to wonder if every one on this forum was as crazy as ViRedd. He must have some heavy rose colored glasses. To not see what the Bush-cheney regime has wrought, is to be blind to the truth and facts. I'll let Dankdude post the facts, I know what I know and don't feel like proving them to anyone, Chavez was right, Bush is a devil, A corporate sponsored devil, can I get an Amen!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"can I get an Amen!"

The roar of the "Amens" is making the friggin' walls vibrate! *lol*

Vi
 

vervejunkie

Well-Known Member
I bet Med and ViRedd are really the same person, who's in for $10?

Bush is an idiot and he fubared Iraq real good. But any dreadheaded liberal limpwrist should privately research the fundamentalist Islamic ideologies and see that the radical sharia theocratists are not your friends just because you both hate Bush. The hippies, potheads, intellectual intelligencia, liberal pundits and coffeehouse beatniks will be the first to be beheaded, stoned and dragged through the streets if Islam had it's way. Don't be so quick to rally for a culture that is sworn to turn and bite the hand that feeds it.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Are you infering that if you post against Bush you are for the "Islamofascists", sounds more like Ann FUcking Coulter Than a "Liberal conservative". My friend, I'll guarantee you if "Islamofascists" come marching down my street to cut off my head, they will be hit with a hail of AK47 fire and everything else in my armory. The "Islamofascists" thing was thought up by Carl Rove, the Devil Himself, to scare the American people into allowing the type of legislation that was passed last week, taking more of our freedoms away. Scare tactics young man, plain and simple scare tactics, to further their agenda! I personally have never encountered a terrorist, have you? Just don't take nail clippers on a plane and keep shopping and everything will be OK, unless (dread) the Democrats win, then Look out there will be terrorists around every corner. What a load of crap!
 

vervejunkie

Well-Known Member
I'm anti-Bush and anti-Islamofacists too!!!

But I lived in the West Bank for 4 years during the first Gulf War and yes, I've encountered terrorists from both sides. And guess what?

It's real!

There are assholes who want us dead, for no other reason than we have the freedom to argue over the internet. All politicians nowadays are corrupt power hungery rich elitist douches, DNC or GOP. The fact is we have to fight them, the option is how to go about doing it imho.

Khalid Mohammed should be waterboarded and OMG! forced to stay up for days in a row without pissing or praying if it helps him remember where all his friends are.

Am I scared that the neo-con machine will swallow me up as I drive a 1/2 mile through suburbia to get a cheeseburger value meal, imprison me unfairly and torture me without trial?

No
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Yeah, funny thing is the Bush administration think that redefining international law (IE the Geneva Convention) is going to give them some kind defence when the World Court convenes over the Iraq war.

Vi your getting authoritarian again.


There is no defence for this administration and yet you think everything this asshole does is ok with you.
Yet countless times this president and his chorines have violated International law as well as the constitution of the United States. This is not the civil war and GW Bush is not Abe Lincoln.

A little known fact, the president has been signing documents to absolve himself of anything that he has done that may be against the law.
I'm not sure that is legal, much less that an executive order constitutionally constitutes an act of treason.

Vi if you are defending this idiot just because he cuts taxes, then you are just as out of touch with America as the congress and the president.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Just remember the Famous words of Hermann Goering.

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I'm anti-Bush and anti-Islamofacists too!!!

But I lived in the West Bank for 4 years during the first Gulf War and yes, I've encountered terrorists from both sides. And guess what?

It's real!

There are assholes who want us dead, for no other reason than we have the freedom to argue over the internet. All politicians nowadays are corrupt power hungery rich elitist douches, DNC or GOP. The fact is we have to fight them, the option is how to go about doing it imho.

Khalid Mohammed should be waterboarded and OMG! forced to stay up for days in a row without pissing or praying if it helps him remember where all his friends are.

Am I scared that the neo-con machine will swallow me up as I drive a 1/2 mile through suburbia to get a cheeseburger value meal, imprison me unfairly and torture me without trial?

No
Maybe you should be. If you look like shiek mohammod then I expect the law will take notice and deal with you, But what if the president deems you a threat to "his" presidency and scoops you up for your political beliefs, throws you in prison and basically, throws the Key away. That is what scares the shit out of me, and with his (G.W.s) new laws, that is exactly what a president can do!. I guess you don't remember Nixon (how could you), He had contingency plans to do away with elections and be president forever. Remember just this one quote and you'll know: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" Peace!
 

Doobie006

Well-Known Member
When it comes to presidential power (How much or how little to have), we should keep this in mind; If you are on the Right, imagine someone like Hugo Chavez being the president. Would you still want the President to have that much power over the citizens? And if you are on the Left, imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh as your President. And I ask you the same question. If the answer is "yes" than give them the power.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" <---It's been proven by history on many occasions.
 

Doobie006

Well-Known Member
I have no problem with torturing "bad guys".
If I was a father and had a daughter who got raped and I caught the S.O.B, just give me some pliers, battery acid, and barbed wire and I'll go medieval on his ass...

However State sponsored torture is a different story all together.
Governments are notorious for making mistakes. This is not the power we want to entrust to our government.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
When it comes to presidential power (How much or how little to have), we should keep this in mind; If you are on the Right, imagine someone like Hugo Chavez being the president. Would you still want the President to have that much power over the citizens? And if you are on the Left, imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh as your President. And I ask you the same question. If the answer is "yes" than give them the power.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" <---It's been proven by history on many occasions.
Not just in history but but in psychology too.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
"I have no problem with tortuing bad guys" Who determines who's bad? Bush has said that Iran and N.Korea are axis of evils. Does that make all Iranians and N.Koreans Bad. Is it OK to torture them? I guess Bush thought all Iraqis were bad, Because he thought it OK to torture them. What if he thought you were Bad, would it be OK then
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Once again.


&#8220;Naturally the common people don&#8217;t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it&#8217;s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.&#8221;
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler&#8217;s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
 

ViRedd

New Member
I'm anti-Bush and anti-Islamofacists too!!!

But I lived in the West Bank for 4 years during the first Gulf War and yes, I've encountered terrorists from both sides. And guess what?

It's real!

There are assholes who want us dead, for no other reason than we have the freedom to argue over the internet. All politicians nowadays are corrupt power hungery rich elitist douches, DNC or GOP. The fact is we have to fight them, the option is how to go about doing it imho.

Khalid Mohammed should be waterboarded and OMG! forced to stay up for days in a row without pissing or praying if it helps him remember where all his friends are.

Am I scared that the neo-con machine will swallow me up as I drive a 1/2 mile through suburbia to get a cheeseburger value meal, imprison me unfairly and torture me without trial?

No



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How anyone can argue with the above post is a mystery to me.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

How anyone can argue with the above post is a mystery to me.

Vi


Easy Vi,
Refer to Hermann Goering.

Yes we were attacked on 9-11 (although some things there don't add up)

Yes we were justified going to Afghanistan. (although we were so close to Bin Laden and we made the troops stand down)

But Iraq was a minor threat at worst, It was a matter of time before Saddam's government collapsed because Saddam and his sons were bankrupting the country. The real threat was Iran. Oh and Saddam didn't tolerate any competition from other terrorist. In fact it was well known that Saddam killed terrorist.

SInce 9-11 the Government has done nothing but a power grab while they kept instilling fear in the people so that they can keep that power. Those that dared question the motives of the president and his administration were denounced as pacifists and their patriotism questioned, and also telling the people who question the authority are accused of exposing the country to danger.
Guess what, the people are starting to wake up my friend. You'll owe me some cookies when the election is over.
 
Top