The Purpose of Habeas Corpus
by Steve Vladeck
Piggybacking (again) on Deborah’s response to Ben’s response to… (you get the idea): It strikes me that we’re having a debate over the proper role of the courts at a level of abstraction that is largely unhelpful. Ben says that he is okay with the role played by the D.C. Circuit in Parhat, for example, but that he is “uncomfortable with the open-ended role for the courts that will follow Boumediene. My acid test is whether we’re designing the system through litigation or whether we’re implementing a system with that litigation.”
I guess I just don’t see what is so open-ended, and perhaps clarification from Ben would help. The central inquiry in a habeas petition is whether the petitioner’s detention is unlawful. That’s it. Congress will of course have a lot to say in specifying whether or not the petitioner’s detention is authorized by statute, but it is then up to the courts, as it always has been, to decide (1) whether this particular petitioner falls within the substantive scope of the detention authority Congress has authorized, and (2) whether there are any constitutional problems either with the substantive scope of that authority, or with the process employed by the government in deciding that the petitioner falls within that scope. The answer in the vast majority of cases may well be “no,” especially if Congress does more than it has previously done to define the substantive detention criteria with any modicum of precision. But whether Congress so acts or not, I still don’t see how such review “threaten[s] an enormous and unwarranted expansion of judicial power in foreign and military affairs.” Indeed, there is an inverse relationship here between how active the courts will need to be and how specific Congress is. That doesn’t just strike me as the hand we’ve been dealt; that strikes me as the right way to run this railroad…
Related Posts
- March 24, 2010 -- Benjamin Wittes on the AQ7 Ad
- November 4, 2008 -- Where Have I Seen the NYT’s Detainee Data Project Before …? And Is the Times Implying that It’s Okay to Hold Some Detainees Without Trial?
- August 2, 2008 -- Law and the Long War: Closing Post
- August 1, 2008 -- Rounding Things Up
- August 1, 2008 -- Closing Thoughts on the Road Ahead
- August 1, 2008 -- A Few Final Thoughts and the Problem of Un-Ringing Bells…
- August 1, 2008 -- Al-Marwallah’s Ears Must Be Burning
- July 31, 2008 -- Quick al-Marwalah Follow-Ups
- July 31, 2008 -- More Detention Cases
- July 31, 2008 -- Al-Marwallah and Standards for Detention
- July 31, 2008 -- So Are They All Just Criminals?
- July 31, 2008 -- The al-Marwalah Detention
- July 31, 2008 -- War Zones, Substance, and Procedure in Terrorism Prosecutions
- July 31, 2008 -- Prevention
- July 31, 2008 -- Try the Detainees
- July 30, 2008 -- The Forgotten H.R. 6615
- July 30, 2008 -- Thoughts on Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Judge Wilkinson and the Ambiguity of the “Conduct that . . . Aims to Harm” Criterion
- July 30, 2008 -- A Brief Aside on Detention: Alien Enemies and the EDA
- July 30, 2008 -- What Should a 2009 Detention Statute Look Like?
- July 30, 2008 -- The Ten Principles of Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Speaking of Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Assessing the Threat: One More Meta-Question for Ben and the Group
- July 29, 2008 -- Congress in the War on al Qaeda
- July 29, 2008 -- Complexity in the Afghan-Pakistan theater and the Role of the War Model in the War on Terrorism
- July 29, 2008 -- Some Additional Thoughts
- July 29, 2008 -- Responding to Steve and Deborah
- July 29, 2008 -- Should Judges or Congress Elaborate the Procedural Details of Habeas Review?
- July 29, 2008 -- Push a Square Peg into a Round Hole, or Build Another Hole?
- July 29, 2008 -- Not Enough Law? Compared to What?
- July 29, 2008 -- Back to Ben on the Courts
- July 29, 2008 -- The Role of the Courts
- July 29, 2008 -- More on the Role of the Courts in the “Long War”
- July 29, 2008 -- A Point of Clarification
- July 29, 2008 -- Not All Hearsay Rules Are Created Equal
- July 29, 2008 -- The Real Lessons of Law and The Long War
- July 29, 2008 -- Is Messy Constitutionalism the Enemy of Effective Strategy?
- July 28, 2008 -- A Few Thoughts
- July 28, 2008 -- Reading Ben’s Book
- July 28, 2008 -- To Ignore International Law Is To Dismiss It
- July 28, 2008 -- Damning International Tribunals with Faint Praise
- July 28, 2008 -- The “War” Model, Iraq’s Role, and the Need for Strategic Focus
- July 28, 2008 -- Peter’s Two Points
- July 28, 2008 -- Don’t Let the Legal Policy Tail Wag the Foreign Policy Dog
- July 28, 2008 -- Wittes’ Law and the Long War: International Law Goes Missing
- July 28, 2008 -- Getting Things Started
- July 28, 2008 -- Opinio Juris Book Discussion: Benjamin Wittes’ Law and the Long War
- July 25, 2008 -- Discussion of Wittes’ Law and the Long War Starts This Monday
- June 27, 2008 -- Wittes’ Law and the Long War: Wise Counsel for the Age of Terror (If That’s What We’re In)
- June 18, 2008 -- Curtis Bradley on Benjamin Wittes’ Law and the Long War
- May 21, 2008 -- Previewing Benjamin Wittes’ New Book on Law and Terror and Guantanamo
July 29th, 2008 - 12:40 PM EDT | Trackback Link |
http://opiniojuris.org/2008/07/29/the-purpose-of-habeas-corpus/