Marzieh Hashemi Denied Writ of Habeas Corpus

    6
    1180
    www.tehrantimes.com

    Health Editor’s Note:  In light of the current travesty of the detention and imprisonment of Marzieh Hashemi, journalist and anchor who works for Iran’s English-language Press TV television news network, we will give a remedial course in what constitutes Habeas Corpus.  Hashemi was born in the United States and is African American. She has been anchoring news programs, some with our VT staff as guests, for years and is respected in her field. On Sunday she was detained upon arrival at St. Louis Lambert International Airport and is being held without charges, which is clearly a violation of U.S.Constitutional law.  It is clearly unlawful to hold a United States citizen without charge. Now on to the explanation of Habeas Corpus and stay tuned to Veterans Today as we will stay on top of this story as it unfolds….Carol   

    Why Lincoln and Bush Both Suspended Habeas Corpus

    There were differences and similarities in each president’s decision

    by Robert Longley/ThoughtCo

    On Oct. 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons “determined by the United States” to be an “enemy combatant” in the Global War on Terror. President Bush’s action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law’s failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an “enemy combatant.”

    To President Bush’s support for the law — the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, “What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.”

     

    In fact, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was not the first time in the history of the U.S. Constitution that its guaranteed right to writs of habeas corpus has been suspended by an action of the President of the United States. In the early days of the U.S. Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. There were, however, both similarities and differences between the actions of Presidents Bush and Lincoln.

    What Is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?

     

    writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner must be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another’s detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.

    Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From

    The right of writs of habeas corpus is granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states,

    “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    Bush’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

    President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through his support and signing into law of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The bill grants the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting military commissions to try persons held by the U.S. and considered to be “unlawful enemy combatants” in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition, the Act suspends the right of “unlawful enemy combatants” to present or to have presented in their behalf, writs of habeas corpus.

    Specifically, the Act states, “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

    Importantly, the Military Commissions Act does not affect the hundreds of writs of habeas corpus already filed in federal civilian courts on behalf of persons held by the U.S.as unlawful enemy combatants. The Act only suspends the accused person’s right to present writs of habeas corpus until after their trial before the military commission has been completed. As explained in a White House Fact Sheet on the Act, “… our courts should not be misused to hear all manner of other challenges by terrorists lawfully held as enemy combatants in wartime.”

    Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

    Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.

    In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln ‘s order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney’s ruling.

    On Sept. 24, 1862, President Lincoln issued a proclamation suspending the right to writs of habeas corpus nationwide.

    “Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:”

    Additionally, Lincoln’s proclamation specified whose rights of habeas corpus would be suspended:

    “Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.”

    In 1866, after the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus throughout the nation and declared military trials illegal in areas where civilian courts were again able to function.

    On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush suspended the constitutionally bestowed right of writs of habeas corpus. President Abraham Lincoln did the same thing 144 years ago. Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. But there were some significant differences and similarities in both the circumstances and the details of the two presidents’ actions.

    Differences and Similarities
    Recalling that the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus when “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” lets consider some of the differences and similarities between the actions of Presidents Bush and Lincoln.

    • Presidents Bush and Lincoln both acted to suspend habeas corpus under the powers granted to them as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military during a time of war.
    • President Lincoln acted in the face of an armed rebellion within the United States – the U.S. Civil War. President Bushs action was a response to the Global War on Terrorism, considered to have been triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and the Pentagon. Both presidents, however, could cite “Invasion” or the much broader term “public Safety” as constitutional triggers for their actions.
    • President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus unilaterally, while President Bushs suspension of habeas corpus was approved by Congress through the Military Commissions Act.
    • President Lincoln’s action suspended the habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed by President Bush, stipulates that the right of habeas corpus should be denied only to aliens “detained by the United States.”
    • Both suspensions of habeas corpus applied only to persons held in military prisons and tried before military courts. The habeas corpus rights of persons tried in civilian courts were not affected.
    Certainly the suspension — even if temporary or limited — of any right or freedom granted by the U.S. Constitution is a momentous act that should be carried out in only in the face of dire and unanticipated of circumstances. Circumstances like civil wars and terrorist attacks are certainly both dire and unanticipated. But whether one or both, or neither warranted the suspension of the right of writs of habeas corpus remains open for debate.

    Biography
    Carol graduated from Riverside White Cross School of Nursing in Columbus, Ohio and received her diploma as a registered nurse. She attended Bowling Green State University where she received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History and Literature. She attended the University of Toledo, College of Nursing, and received a Master’s of Nursing Science Degree as an Educator.

    She has traveled extensively, is a photographer, and writes on medical issues. Carol has three children RJ, Katherine, and Stephen – one daughter-in-law; Katie – two granddaughters; Isabella Marianna and Zoe Olivia – and one grandson, Alexander Paul. She also shares her life with husband Gordon Duff, many cats, and two rescue pups.

    Carol’s Archives 2009-2013
    ATTENTION READERS
    Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
    We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

    All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

    About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

    6 COMMENTS

    1. I am quite sure the real cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center was excessive hubris on the part of the vast majority of the US population – no one would have dared do such an inside job if they were not aware that they could fool most of the people most of the time.

      “No, there is no such thing as nanothermite, it simply doesn’t exist outside of miniscule quantities produced in a laboratory at immense expense. ” – IG

      The above is contradictory (but the correct meaning is easy to determine from it). It does seem that just enough nanothermite exists to convince the credulous that it was used to convert several large building into clouds of pyroclastic dust. But of course WTC 1 and 2 would have to have been stuffed like grain silos during harvest season with thermite to have enough chemical energy to create that much new surface area.

    2. No, there is no such thing as nanothermite, it simply doesn’t exist outside of miniscule quantities produced in a laboratory at immense expense. There were nukes inside Urban Moving Systems vans placed in the underground parking lots of the WTC, plus dozens of smaller nukes hidden inside fire extinguishers placed on various floors and triggered to explode from the top down by GSM mobile phone signals. There were no bombs inside the Pentagon, it was hit by a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead that was fired from a submarine offshore. The Saudis weren’t patsies, they were fully on board, providing both finance and personnel.

    3. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-01-16/american-born-iranian-journalist-marzieh-hashemi-detained-by-fbi-while-visiting-us Quote:
      “AN AMERICAN-BORN anchorwoman on Iran’s English-language state television service was arrested by the FBI this week while visiting the United States.
      Press TV reported on Wednesday that its anchorwoman, Marzieh Hashemi, had been detained in the U.S. “for unspecified reasons.” She was taken into custody upon her arrival at St. Louis Lambert International Airport on Sunday.
      The station learned that Hashemi, born Melanie Franklin of New Orleans, was transferred by the bureau to a detention facility in Washington, D.C., and it says officials have not provided a reason for her arrest.
      According to Press TV, Hashemi, who converted to Islam in 1982, has worked for the station for 25 years. She was in the United States to visit her family and brother, who has cancer. Hashemi could not communicate with her family and was only allowed to contact her daughter two days after being taken into custody, the outlet said.
      Hashemi reportedly told her daughter that she had been handcuffed and shackled and had her hijab forcibly removed. Press TV claimed she had been subject to “abusive treatment,” including being offered only pork to eat, which is forbidden under Islamic law.
      According to the Associated Press, Hashemi lives in Iran for about half the year, spending the other half in Colorado, where her children live.”

      • Compare the abusive treatment documented above of this fine American Journalist who works in Iran, with the corrupt favored treatment of the billionaire in Florida accused of sex crimes with under age girls but received a slap on the wrist and favored secret treatment by lying lawyers. Why are the lying lawyers in our Injustice Department violating her basic Constitutional rights to know why she was illegally arrested and improperly treated by the criminals who are running the dictatorial government controlled by international criminals in Israel? Where are the 1.3 million lawyers in America to aid this innocent journalist in distress by the outlaws running the U.S. government?

      • Recall following the illegal attack on 9/11/01 by Israel, aided by Bush, Cheney and the criminal Four Star Generals, how the whores in Congress passed the totally illegal and unconstitutional Patriot Act, gang raping us of our Constitutional Rights? This is what she is likely up against.
        https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it One can be almost certain criminals in Israel are behind this monstrous arrest and treatment of her. Look at how the criminals in Israel treat Palestinians every day? And just think of how the whores in our totally corrupt C
        ongress bow down to these pieces of human garbage in Israel and kiss their rear ends while passing obscene legislation like the Patriot Act gang raping our own Constitution! What a shameful disgrace this country has degenerated to run by mental cowards and degenerates.

    Comments are closed.