« Home | DEBATE SOBRE A REFORMA PENAL - DIVULGAÇÃO » | Arms Trade Treaty » | Pergunta de quem de SCUT nada percebe » | Vice-Procurador-Geral da República rejeitado pelo ... » | Tough interrogation » | ... há uns mais iguais do que outros » | Jurisprudência » | O Conservador » | Luta contra a corrupção: ainda... a falta de meio... » | Trabalhos de fim de semestre »

Requiem pelo habeas corpus

Oitocentos anos depois da Magna Carta e dois anos após o Supremo Tribunal Federal ter decidido (Rasul v. Bush) que os tribunais norte-americanos têm (tinham) jurisdição sobre Guantánamo para receber pedidos de habeas corpus, o Military Commissions Act of 2006 - já aqui "lincado" - consagra:
«Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien’s detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement».
Extracto do editorial do The New York Times:
«A Dangerous New Order
Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.
Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step.
Not satisfied with having won the vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, quickly issued a statement accusing Democrats who opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of putting "their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America." He said the Democrats "would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans’ lives" and create "new rights for terrorists."
(...)
While the Republicans pretend that this bill will make America safer, let’s be clear about its real dangers. It sets up a separate system of justice for any foreigner whom Mr. Bush chooses to designate as an "illegal enemy combatant." It raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. It does not require the government to release prisoners who are not being charged, or a prisoner who is exonerated by the tribunals.
The law does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening. It further damages the nation’s reputation and, by repudiating key protections of the Geneva Conventions, it needlessly increases the danger to any American soldier captured in battle.
In the short run, voters should see through the fog created by the Republican campaign machine. It will be up to the courts to repair the harm this law has done to the Constitution».

ligado

Criar uma hiperligação