The Justice Department Looking For Lawyers To Handle Habeas Cases
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jul 09, 2008 6:00pm
At the time of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Boumediene v. Bush three weeks ago, the Justice Department had four lawyers devoted to handling about 250 Guantanamo Bay habeas cases.
Now that the high court has cleared the way for detainees to challenge their captivity in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Justice is trying to fatten its team to 50 lawyers -- half of whom would be assigned to clean up or augment the government's evidence.
(Acting Assistant Attorney General Gregory) Katsas' letter (calling for 30 more attorneys from outside the DoJ) was sent on the same day that the D.C. Circuit unclassified portions of a decision that criticized the quality of the government's evidence in a detainee case. The letter is the first acknowledgment by the Justice Department that factual returns -- the summaries of the government's allegations and evidence in support of holding the detainees -- may not pass muster in federal court.
The letter is silent on where the 30 outside lawyers will come from, but it states plainly why they are needed: The 100 factual returns already filed in the habeas cases require shoring up, and the Justice Department needs lawyers to produce at least 100 more returns for the remaining cases. The Justice Department's plan to amend the evidence in the habeas cases was first reported by the Associated Press.
The DoJ started asking their 93 US Attorneys office last week to help with their search. While the DoJ will not say how their search is going, I've spoken to some attorneys who tell me that they're not getting much interest. In fact, there's some confusion as to what the DoJ needs at all:
"It seems bizarre that the Justice Department needs to throw a whole bunch of new lawyers at explaining at the most basic level why these people are in prison," says Susan Baker Manning, a partner at Bingham McCutchen
Login or Register to post comments.
I'm still angry at Obama for FISA.
No more donations to the Democratic party from me.
John @ 1:
Good. Feel free to express that in an open thread, or a FISA/Obama thread. How do you feel about the fact the DoJ has to hire out for 30+ more lawyers just to properly explain why the current detainees are even being detained? I'm angry about that too, and found the proper forum to express that anger.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
So, why not just get the Dems to push through new legislation banning habeas corpus? It worked on FISA...
Good luck! I really wonder what the fate of these detainees will be.
I did. And I continue to express wherever and whenever I feel the need, thank you.
Watch out Liberty University Law School whose motto is "we got readin' and writin' here"
John @ 6:
More to the point, I am so angry, I cannot get over it. This incident is diminished in my mind by the FISA let-down. My apologies.
John @ 6:
Ok. Well, we're talking about how the DoJ has to get help just to justify detaining the people being detained. Are you angry about that too? Or just a one-trick-pony of fury?
Leadership @ 7:
No "rithmatic" at Liberty, that's a science!
John @ 8:
Is all good. I'm kinda being a self appointed 'on topic' monitor, so my apologies aswell.
And I do like to remind people that we're fighting to keep more than just the 4th amendment alive. It's a multi level assault against the whole constitution that's goin on.
Should George W. Bush be tried for war crimes?
Jimmi the Grey @ 9:
I am, but not as angry as the other. The entire DOJ cronies will be "wiped clean by the wrath of God" by the next admin, and the entire thing will be cleaned up. However, the waffle of FISA, and the pandering that I am witnessing to the right al la faith based bs, I'm not so sure that that will happen.
Yeah, I am angry over this, but my hope that this stuff would change has been diminished.
Jimmi the Grey @ 9:
Congress made the rule of law irrelevant yesterday. Why do we need a DoJ, or even lawyers now? The govt can do anything they want. Just shoot the detainees in the head, then legalize execution without trial - problem solved! Before long, they can even skip the legalizing-after-the-fact part.
Don't you think that the detainees would have been tried already if the prosecution had enough evidence, especially under the restrictive rules they were able to take advantage of? Obviously, they don't have enough on most of the people, and have released hundreds and now claim that the rest won't be taken by anybody, so they have to be held forever. Is this the US we thought we had?
Leadership @ 7:
You mean, "reedin' and ritin'," of course. ;)
Habeas Corpus means bring forth the body
An unfortunate choice of words for former Gitmo prisoners.
mr.ed @ 15:
I would imagine that some of the people being held in Guantanamo do belong in prison, and are guilty of what the government claims. And there probably is evidence for it.
But that's not the point, from the administration's point of view. They don't want to have to bother with trials. Ever. For anyone. The last thing they want to do is prove that it can be done, and be done safely. They want everyone so scared that the idea that civil rights and liberties come at the president's prerogative gains societal legitimacy.
John @ 8:
Try donating to the ACLU. They never caved on FISA.
Jimmi the Grey @ 3:
It's all of a piece.
Karen @ 18:
I would say that many more wre tortured into confessing, than the few that may be guilty.
chris [not the troll] @ 4:
I can picture Nancy Pelosi now: "I don't want to pass this bill, but in the spirit of compromise I must put this forward and vote yes on it..."
John @ 10:
That's funny thank you!!!
“It seems bizarre that the Justice Department needs to throw a whole bunch of new lawyers at explaining at the most basic level why these people are in prison,” says Susan Baker Manning, a partner at Bingham McCutchen
That's because when it comes to the majority of detainees, they have no evidence and no reason to charge them with the crimes they are holding them for. They've already released hundreds of them for the same reason.
These trials will be quite interesting.
The DOJ needs a new name.
The DOJ and their flat earth society lawyers.
They should have stellar reasons and reasoning why those people have been detained all those years with NO EVIDENCE.
St. Vitus @ 25:
Big Booted Raging Poopy Butts of the South United for One on One Repression of the 4th Kind from Hell!
Ron @ 21:
Exactly. Next they will argue that the trials must be delayed because the detainees are likely to go free if they are allowed to have their day in court.
The administration will argue that will happen because of a lack of evidence that could not be obtained in the midst of combat on the battlefield.
Therefore, we must hold them indefinitely or else they will either kill American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, or worse, they will roam our neighborhoods and kill us in our beds.
Bush is just delaying the inevitable and shameful embarrassment of our country when most are determined to have been innocent all along.
St. Vitus @ 25:
I'd be my hope to make it 'Dept of Corrections'. I'd take the right people running the show tho, so I'm not optimistic.
Maybe it was a rhetorical comment by Ms. Baker Manning but I believe that the evidence that the DoJ needs to show is slim. If they can't, and I have no reason to believe they will be able to, show some very flimsy evidence that these people are a little bit guilty of something then they will walk free. The horrible thing is that they have been rotting away for years and years and years just because Bush said so. This is going to put Bush in prison forever. I sure hope that the Dems are just sitting on their hands until after January to start throwing the book at this absolute criminal. After all there is no reason to start now when he and his henchmen can pardon, stall, roadblock and make it next to impossible for anybody to actually do anything TO him. This better be the reason they are letting us down now. Please please please!!!
Jimmi the Grey @ 29:
corrected for missing 't'. I need to do something about the keys on this keyboard...or my fingers, or something.
Well, y'see; we can't let them go even if they are innocent. Umm, y'see; since most of them have been shocked in the nads a few hundred times they might have attitude problems. We really don't WANT to shoot them all in the back of the head but we really don't have a choice....have a nice reich!
They’re looking for fresh blood and new ideas on how to frame the neocon agenda. They will, of course, fail because they still don’t realize the gig is up. Stupid asshats.
Jimmi the Grey @ 31:
You can remove tthe bad keys, but please don't remove the fingers.
Just a few good men good enough for the Gitmo job.
These guys in Gitmo aren't even allowed to be told the Habeas has been repealed. They don't want our attys either. They trust no one. This is a major problem the attys are having with their clients. The clients have been so mind fucked, they don't want good old fashioned ACLU attys. They insist on a pro se defense which will preclude anything being disclosed to them, ostensibly for security reasons.
ACLU At Guantánamo This Week For Hearings On Detainees' Legal Representation (7/9/2008)
---snip---
"By all indications, the government has purposefully encouraged a situation where the detainees would represent themselves 'pro se,' knowing that such an arrangement could prevent the disclosure of documented torture or other abuse at the hands of the CIA, as well as evidence concerning the 9/11 tragedy," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU who is at Guantánamo this week. "The administration's goal here is to conduct fast, one-sided and, to the extent possible, discovery-free proceedings that allow for the cover-up of illegal detainee treatment. We will continue to fight this legal farce and hold the administration to account."
Gee, I think Ashcroft and Yoo and Gonzalez are available...
Anyone wanting a book recommendation:
Enemy Aliens. Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism
by David Cole of Center for Constitutional Rights
Very clearly lays out many many abuses of law including Ashcroft's abuse of immigration law vs. criminal law and why it's "OK" to aim all this hostility at immigrants. the worst abuse is losing one's liberty for no reason at all.
miss_kitty @ 36:
Sorry if this is simpleminded...can the ACLU get someone "from home" to speak to them? I mean, where there is an opportunity. Someone who is following this from the outside? that is, internationally?
Looks like the Brits are making a start and admitting what has happened and making reparations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7500204.stm
I wonder if the US will ever even admit the cruelty they dish out on a daily basis.
Old Billy Hussein @ 19:
Yes, donate to the ACLU. They are going to file suit over FISA.
"Clean up or augment the"? Six years down the road, isn't that pretty much the same as "falsify new"?
I've heard that any lawyer that wants to defend an "unlawful enemy combatant"
must now try to get a license from the Treasury Dept. Is this true?
Jimmi the Grey @ 3:
EVERY THREAD SHOULD BE OBAMA/FISA TODAY.
IF HE REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF FISA
THEN OBAMA HAS NO PLACE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
HE'S JUST ENTERED INTO A CRIMINAL CONSPIRICY.
John @ 1:
Wouldn't you rather CRIMINAL charges were brought, rather than CIVIL?
A victory in civil court has money awarded.
A victory in criminal court has JAIL TIME attached.
The CRIMINAL COURT option is still open, should an Obama administration choose to have charges brought.
The only question is whether they will choose that route.
Login or Register to post comments.