# Time to Kiss Habeas Corpus Goodbye **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 28, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517 "2006-09-28T18:16:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/221 "2006-09-29T19:04:10Z")
[QUOTE=vibrotronica] So when do these particular hostilities end? [/QUOTE] When do ANY hostilies end? Seriously – when did hostilities in Vietnam end, specifically? I’m asking to try to figure out what you’re picturing, here. I could say, “Congress can end the hostilities,” but I sense that would be unsatisfactory. So I’m trying to understand how you see the process of ending armed hostilities. What happened, SPECIFICALLY, to end the Vietnam War? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/222 "2006-09-29T19:05:59Z")
Does that act also allow the accused to get a _habeas_ writ notwithsanding the new law if the government ignores the timelines. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/223 "2006-09-29T19:06:27Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] No because you only cited 950g. I wonder, did GW attach a signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005? [/QUOTE] I cited 950g for the proposition that access to the judicial system was available. Since the law under discussion refers to the Detainee Treatment Act, why wouldn’t you read it when you were reading this current law? How do you expect to understand what this law is saying if you don’t read a law it refers to? ---
**Author:** ![aclubs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@aclubs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aclubs)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/224 "2006-09-29T19:08:05Z")
Let me rephrase. The system as a whole is most assuredly _not_ fine. I have two large problems with it. 1. We’re tossing people into the military commissions who don’t warrant being there, possibly undermining their fundamental due process rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution. 2. Torture. What I meant to say was that the portion about stripping habeas is fine and precedented for normal wartime enemies. My mistake. Having said that, let there be no mistake. I’m still _exceedingly_ opposed to the bill as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/225 "2006-09-29T19:08:09Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Does that act also allow the accused to get a _habeas_ writ notwithsanding the new law if the government ignores the timelines. [/QUOTE] I would say the answer is yes, although the law does not specifically allow it. But since the law forbids habeas petitions, I would say that if its dictates are not followed, that would permit a detained person to file a habeas. Or possibly a writ of mandamus to compel the tribunal to hear his case as required by law. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/226 "2006-09-29T19:08:59Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Right, and I’ve agreed that capturing Padilla in the borders of the US and then subjecting him to this process was not appropriate. We’re not going to be doing that any more. [/quote] On what grounds do you make that claim? > [@](#): > > People get arrested by the cops. Sometimes there turns out to be insufficient evidence, and the cops have to let them go. > > Why is this different? Because of _habeas corpus_ - you know, the very thing we’re discussing here. People wrongly arrested by the local cops can file a _habeas_ petition if detained for long enough to file the paperwork. People nabbed in Afghanistan because their brother-in-law didn’t like them and accused them of being a terrorist don’t have that protection. > [@](#): > > Well, the Second Circuit’s decision in the Padilla case certainly goes towards (a)'s end, doesn’t it? The Second Circuit said: _"“the President lacked **inherent** constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat”._ Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that the President lacks the authority for such detentions _if Congress has not legislated either way on the topic_. Now Congress has - you don’t have to be an alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant, hence eligible for detention. > [@](#): > > And as for (b), again: > > \*Charges and specifications against an accused in a military commission under this chapter shall be signed by a person subject to chapter 47 of this title under oath before a commissioned officer of the armed forces authorized to administer oaths and shall state– > > `(1) that the signer has personal knowledge of, or reason to believe, the matters set forth therein; and > > `(2) that they are true in fact to the best of his knowledge and belief.\* That’s all well and good, once charges have been filed. Who says they have to be? > [@](#): > > The Detainee Treatment Act passed last year lays out timetables for the review of the status of detainees, yes. This legislation changes the way those reviews are conducted, but it doesn’t change the time limits specified last year. Here’s what the [Detainee Treatment Act](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php) says about that: > [@Detainee Treatment Act of 2005](#): > > SEC. 1005. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS REVIEW OF DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. > > (a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq- > > (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report setting forth– > > (A) the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Administrative Review Boards established by direction of the Secretary of Defense that are in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or to provide an annual review to determine the need to continue to detain an alien who is a detainee ; and > > (B) the procedures in operation in Afghanistan and Iraq for a determination of the status of aliens detained in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of Defense in those countries. Seems like the law’s pretty vague as to _what sort of timeline_ must be laid out, but more important, unless I’m missing something, **it only applies to detainments in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan**. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/227 "2006-09-29T19:09:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] When do ANY hostilies end? Seriously – when did hostilities in Vietnam end, specifically? I’m asking to try to figure out what you’re picturing, here. I could say, “Congress can end the hostilities,” but I sense that would be unsatisfactory. So I’m trying to understand how you see the process of ending armed hostilities. What happened, SPECIFICALLY, to end the Vietnam War? [/QUOTE] A peace accord was signed in Paris, IIRC, in January of 1973 and all prisoners were released in March. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/228 "2006-09-29T19:09:37Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] I don’t agree that the system is fine. In fact no system will protect the people against abuses. That requires good faith on the part of those in power who are running the system. I have little faith in the good faith of our current overlords and our whole system is based on a distrust of those in power. At least our maverick Republican heros got a provision that secret eveidence used at trial must be disclosed to the accused - if there ever is a trial. [/QUOTE] If there is no trial, then the requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act are violated. Are we arguing about the law, or how bad Bush is? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/229 "2006-09-29T19:10:44Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] A peace accord was signed in Paris, IIRC, in January of 1973 and all prisoners were released in March. [/QUOTE] And how did that operate to end hostilities from our side, specifically? Again, I’m asking to nail down the process that is necessary from her (or, now, your) point of view. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/230 "2006-09-29T19:11:05Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] When do ANY hostilies end? Seriously – when did hostilities in Vietnam end, specifically? [/QUOTE] Have we ever gotten account of all prisoners? And do we want the North Vietnamese to be our model? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/231 "2006-09-29T19:12:13Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] They’re removed habeas – they have not removed all forms of post conviction review. There’s an analogy to criminal practice. Your state undoubtedly has either a statutory PCR process, or uses a writ of coram nobis - yes? Both of those are independent of habeas. This legislation permits appellate review by the convening authority, review by Court of Military Commission Review, review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and review by the Supreme Court. [/QUOTE] I assume that you are referring to Section 950(g) of the Act, which states: > [@](#): > > Sec. 950g. Review by the United States Court of Appeals for > the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of > the United States > > ``` > ``(a) In General.--(1)(A) Except as provided in > subparagraph (B), the United States Court of Appeals for the > District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive > jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment > rendered by a military commission, pursuant to Section > 1005(e)(3) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. > ``(B) The Court of Appeals shall not review the final > judgment until all other appeals under this chapter have been > waived or exhausted. > ``(2) A petition for review must be filed by the accused in > the Court of Appeals by no longer than 20 days from the > earlier of when-- > ``(A) written notice of the final decision of the Court of > Military Commission Review is served on the accused or on > defense counsel; or > ``(B) the accused submits, in the form prescribed by > section 950c of this title, a written notice waiving his > right to appeal under section 950f of this title. > ``(b) Review by Supreme Court.--The Supreme Court of the > United States may review by writ of certiorari the final > judgment of the Court of Appeals pursuant to section 1257 of > title 28, United States Code. > > ``` The key problem is the court can only review a “final judgment rendered by the military commission”. When, or if, this administration ever gets around to trying these people, I’m hopeful that they will get fair and just trials in accordance with due process. I haven’t read enough of the Act to make a determination yet if that will be the case, but it appears that, once they get their trial, there is adequate appeal rights. The huge problem that you’ve been ignoring from page 1 is that we’ve been waiting 5 years for due process to happen. I’m not so worried about the guys that are being detained that will, eventually have a fair trial, I’m worried about the other guys, guys like Hamdan, Hamdi, Padilla, and the like, who were indefinitely detained without trial while this administration sat on their hands. The only reason this administration has gotten to the point of finally getting on with the trials is the pressure from the court rulings in those cases. You put aside 5 years of reality, magically wave your hands, and pretend that everything will be fine now. That is simply not the case. All Bush and his people have to do is not try anyone, and they have no recourse. This administration has lost all trust I have that they will act honorably and justly and give trials to those they’ve detained. How you can simply smile, pat us all on the head, and tell us it’s going to be allright is beyond me when this administration has fought tooth and nail to deny these people due process. Without habeas protections, Bush merely has to let these people rot, and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it. And people like you continue to apologize for it. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/232 "2006-09-29T19:15:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] If there is no trial, then the requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act are violated. Are we arguing about the law, or how bad Bush is? [/QUOTE] And what happens if that law is violated? It is enforced by the executive who violated it. You can’t really separate the law from those enforcing it and interpreting it. If you think GW has a good, or even acceptable record of seeing that the laws he doesn’t agree with are faithfully enforced then I guess your argument makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/233 "2006-09-29T19:17:27Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] And how did that operate to end hostilities from our side, specifically? Again, I’m asking to nail down the process that is necessary from her (or, now, your) point of view. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the Vietnam alalogy. That was a conventional war which ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. We will never have such a moment with “Islamic Terrorists”. The WoT will never, ever end. Just like the war aginst crime will never ever end. Now, if Congress repeals the AUMF from Oct 14, 2001… then it becomes a different scenary. The president will no longer be authorized by Congress “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/234 "2006-09-29T19:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] On what grounds do you make that claim? [/quote] Because (a) we’ve indicted Padilla, and (b) we’re fashioning this legislation instead of proceeding with ad-hocc detentions. > [@](#): > > Because of _habeas corpus_ - you know, the very thing we’re discussing here. > > People wrongly arrested by the local cops can file a _habeas_ petition if detained for long enough to file the paperwork. People nabbed in Afghanistan because their brother-in-law didn’t like them and accused them of being a terrorist don’t have that protection. Sure they can. But all the cops have to do is show probable cause – essentially the same level of certainty that’s required here. > [@](#): > > The Second Circuit said: _"“the President lacked **inherent** constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat”._ > > Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that the President lacks the authority for such detentions _if Congress has not legislated either way on the topic_. Now Congress has - you don’t have to be an alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant, hence eligible for detention. You are wrong. Is it so much to ask to read the damn law? I mean seriously. Sec. 948a. Definitions says: _(1) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States._ Sec 948c says: _Any **alien** unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter._ C’mon. > [@](#): > > That’s all well and good, once charges have been filed. Who says they have to be? OK, I give up. Read the damn relevant laws. I am tired of cutting and pasting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/235 "2006-09-29T19:21:02Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the Vietnam alalogy. That was a conventional war which ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. We will never have such a moment with “Islamic Terrorists”. The WoT will never, ever end. Just like the war aginst crime will never ever end. Now, if Congress repeals the AUMF from Oct 14, 2001… then it becomes a different scenary. The president will no longer be authorized by Congress “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” [/QUOTE] Either a group representing al-Q will reach an agreement with us, or Congress will withdraw approval for force. What’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/236 "2006-09-29T19:23:04Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] And what happens if that law is violated? It is enforced by the executive who violated it. You can’t really separate the law from those enforcing it and interpreting it. If you think GW has a good, or even acceptable record of seeing that the laws he doesn’t agree with are faithfully enforced then I guess your argument makes sense. [/QUOTE] This thread is about the law that Congress passed – more specifically, it’s about the provision Congress refused to pass concerning habeas access. If your only objection to the law is that you don’t believe it will be enforced correctly because Bush is a Poopy-Head, then I really have very little to meaningfully debate with you. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/237 "2006-09-29T19:23:34Z")
Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I think this is the temporally relevant section of the Detainee Treatment Act of '05 (from [URL=[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php)]here[/URL): > [@](#): > > SEC. 1005. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS REVIEW OF DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. > > (a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq- > > (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report setting forth– > > (A) the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Administrative Review Boards established by direction of the Secretary of Defense that are in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or to provide an annual review to determine the need to continue to detain an alien who is a detainee ; and > > (B) the procedures in operation in Afghanistan and Iraq for a determination of the status of aliens detained in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of Defense in those countries. > … > (1) REPORT REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the annual review process for aliens in the custody of the Department of Defense outside the United States. Each such report shall be submitted in unclassified form, with a classified annex, if necessary. The report shall be submitted not later than December 31 each year. I don’t see a stipulation here on when a trial or review must take place, just time limits for when and how often the DOD must keep others appraised of their progress toward that end. The ability to use a “classified annex” to provide evidence for continued detention, if necessary, which, I assume, the accused or his/her counsel has no right to review, is troubling. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/238 "2006-09-29T19:31:14Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] We are discussing the removal of habeas review from it. Persons convicted are still entitled to: [ul] [li]appeal to the convening authority[/li][li]appeal to Court of Military Commission Review[/li][li]appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[/li][li]appeal to the Supreme Court[/li][/ul] Why is it that level of review insufficient? [/QUOTE] The OP, at least, is unconcerned with what happens following a conviction. The OP is concerned with the absence of a right to contest one’s detainment in the potentially lengthy (potentially infinite?) interval preceding a trial, or even before the bringing of charges. Review after conviction is irrelevant to the argument being made by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/239 "2006-09-29T19:31:40Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] If your only objection to the law is that you don’t believe it will be enforced correctly because Bush is a Poopy-Head, then I really have very little to meaningfully debate with you. [/QUOTE] I have stated my reasons for opposing the prohibition of _habeas corpus_ and what I see as the dangers from that prohibition. I’ll just ascribe your post to frustration on being attacked from so many sides. Sort of like a bear beset by a pack of hunting dogs. And no, I don’t intend to imply that the bear was innocently ambling through the woods when he was unjustifiably set upon. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517/240 "2006-09-29T19:36:18Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Either a group representing al-Q will reach an agreement with us [/quote] No one person can speak for al Qaeda, and there are other groups covered by the AUMF-- all the president has to do is determine that some group is associated with terror activities. > [@](#): > > …or Congress will withdraw approval for force. What’s wrong with that? That might do it, although that wouldn’t be how hostilities normally end. Plus, I don’t see that Congress will ever repeal that act. While it might be theoretically possible to repeal it, we should assume that that won’t happen. I think it’s terrible public policy to give the president such broad powers for what is in all practicallity, forever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kiss-habeas-corpus-goodbye/374517.md?page=13)