Senate rejects bid to let detainees protest in court
Lawyer Blogs
The Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would have allowed military detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to protest their detention in federal court.
The 56-43 vote fell four shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
The vote was a blow for human-rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism.
President Bush and conservative Republicans counter that the ban, enacted last year, was necessary to stem the tide of legal protests flooding civilian courts.
Most Republican senators backed the administration. Besides Specter, the other Republicans who voted with the Democrats were Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
The change in law would have applied to the roughly 340 men held at Guantanamo. Many of them have been held for more than five years without being charged. The Bush administration has said that indefinite detention of enemy combatants who threaten the U.S. is necessary in an age of terrorism.
Congress enacted a law last year that establishes tribunals, made up of three military officials, to review such petitions. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a military lawyer who helped write the law, said the military is best able to determine who's an unlawful enemy combatant.
Graham said that under the Leahy-Specter bill, detainees could pick judges from courts around the country and demand the presence of witnesses from the battlefield.
"That's never been done in any other war, and it should not be done in this war," Graham said.
Leahy responded that people being held indefinitely without charges should be able to assert in court that they were mistakenly picked up. If a detainee is being lawfully held, the government can easily overcome the claim by presenting "the preponderance of the evidence," he said.
Related listings
-
Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban
Lawyer Blogs 09/19/2007[##_1L|1394621724.jpg|width="120" height="80" alt=""|_##]Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state's highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a...
-
Maryland High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Lawyer Blogs 09/18/2007[##_1L|1046825530.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]Maryland's Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision on Tuesday and upheld the state law barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Attorney's for nine same-sex couples had argued th...
-
European Court Rejects Microsoft Antitrust Appeal
Lawyer Blogs 09/17/2007[##_1L|1150852101.jpg|width="90" height="119" alt=""|_##]In a stinging rebuke to the world’s largest software maker, the second-highest European court rejected today a request by Microsoft to overturn a 2004 European Commission antitrust ruling that ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.