Gutting Habeas Corpus: The Inside Story of How Bill Clinton Sacrificed Prisoners' Rights for Political Gain
"On the eve of the New York state primary last month, as Hillary Clinton came closer to the Democratic nomination, Vice President Joe Biden went on TV and defended her husband’s 1994 crime bill. Asked in an interview if he felt shame for his role passing a law that has been the subject of so much recent criticism, Biden answered, 'Not at all,' and boasted of its successes — among them putting '100,000 cops on the street.' His remarks sparked a new round of debate over the legacy of the crime bill, which has haunted Clinton ever since she hit the campaign trail with a vow to 'end the era of mass incarceration.'

A few days later, on April 24, a lesser-known crime law quietly turned 20. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 — or AEDPA — was signed by Bill Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. While it has been mostly absent from the recent debates over the crime policies of the ’90s, its impact has been no less profound, particularly when it comes to a bedrock constitutional principle: habeas corpus, or the right of people in prison to challenge their detention. For 20 years, AEDPA has shut the courthouse door on prisoners trying to prove they were wrongfully convicted. Americans are mostly unaware of this legacy, even as we know more than ever about wrongful convictions. Barry Scheck, co-founder and head of the Innocence Project, calls AEDPA 'a disaster' and “a major roadblock since its passage.'Many would like to see it repealed.'"

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus

by Christine Bremer Muggli

It is a basic ideal of justice: No person should be locked away in prison and not allowed to seek help to challenge the illegal imprisonment. The right to challenge an unjust imprisonment is so fundamental that it dates back over 800 years. At that time, kings and other royals could lock away political enemies. In England when the nobility faced King John in 1215, forcing him to sign the Magna Carta, it included a provision that no one could be imprisoned, have property taken or be exiled "except by lawful judgment." The right of habeas corpus was so well established and important that the framers of the U.S. Constitution included the right in the body of the Constitution, allowing suspensions only under narrow circumstances -- "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Habeas corpus literally means "You have the body" and means the government is required to bring a prisoner -- the body -- before a judge and provide a legal reason for his continued imprisonment.

Read on...

Justice Delayed and Denied at Guantanámo

by Aziz Huq

In June of this year, the Supreme Court issued what Ronald Dworkin hailed as "one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in recent years" when it held that the detainees at the Guantanámo Bay Naval Base are entitled to make "habeas corpus" challenges against the government's purported bases for detaining them.

Indisputably, the 5-4 judgment in Boumediene v. Bush was a major civil liberties victory. It should indeed have major repercussions beyond Guantanámo because it makes clear that at a minimum, constitutional rules ensuring fair process limit governmental actors in all the territorial United States.

This might sound like old news, but in fact it should precipitate the end of some troubling practices at the borders. When a non-citizen now arrives in the United States, immigration officials can place that person in "expedited removal," which means they can be shipped back to a place where they may fear torture without any judicial review. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has expanded the use of " expedited removal" in ways that can be squarely challenged now.

Read on...